The cable company best known for serving suburban New York City.

Cablevision Industries has cried “uncle” in light of relentlessly aggressive competition from Verizon Communications, which offers its fiber to the home FiOS service in much of the cable operator’s service area.

Cablevision’s 4th quarter and year-end financial results, reported earlier today, are underwhelming investors.  Cablevision executives warned the company will have lower cash flow in 2012 due to increased investments in set-top boxes, network upgrades, and more importantly — no planned subscriber rate increases this year.

Some highlights:

Video – Losing Customers Like Everyone Else: Cablevision lost 14,000 video customers in the last quarter, many to Verizon FiOS and ongoing cord-cutting.  Analysts expected just 9,000 defections.  Cablevision will soon launch both HBO and Max Go online video for their customers nationwide.  Additional on-demand video options, online and off, are also anticipated.

Broadband – Cablevision finally admitted its own network was responsible for last year’s faltering broadband speeds that delivered poor marks in ongoing FCC speed tests.  The company originally denied the speed test results were accurate.  Today CEO James Dolan told investors the company invested in its broadband network to improve speeds and service.  Cablevision feels strongly it must compete effectively with Verizon to survive.  The company added 20,000 high-speed data customers and 31,000 phone subscribers in the quarter.  The company is doing well allowing customers easy access to broadband speed upgrades.

Wi-Fi – Cablevision sees strong value in its wireless broadband network as customers increasingly take their content mobile and need connectivity to the web.

Upgrades – CEO Jim Dolan said 2012 will be “a year of investment” in Cablevision upgrades and improvements.  The company is even accelerating projects originally envisioned for 2013.  Cablevision will continue to expand its “next day” installation offer across the eastern United States by the end of the first quarter.

Promotions – The escalating war of promotions between Verizon and Cablevision are likely to cease as Cablevision yanks their most aggressive new customer offers.  Earlier this year, Verizon was pitching a two year triple play offer that included an incredible $500 prepaid card rebate as part of the promotion.  “I don’t think you’ll see those [low introductory rates from Cablevision] again ever,” said Dolan.

“The main theme that people should take away from the call today is that we continue to be focused on moving the business in a direction where we both retain existing subscribers and have attractive, economically sensible offers for new subscribers,” said Cablevision chief financial officer Gregg Seibert.

Billing problems, promotions-not-honored, and passing the buck are all common complaints from cable and phone customers, especially when employees of large providers don’t communicate with each other and saddle customers with the role of “go-between.”

Two recent examples of Customer Service From Hell reached our desk this week, one involving Verizon which has the “not my job” mentality firmly entrenched in their call centers, and the other from Time Warner Cable, where “Diego” told a new customer he couldn’t install their service until they disguised themselves as an old customer to cancel someone else’s service first.

The Case of the Persnickety Promotion – You Don’t Qualify Because We Never Added It to Your Account

You can't touch this Verizon offer when the company forgets to apply it to your account for eight months.

Anthony Caruso received an offer he couldn’t refuse from Verizon FiOS: $69.99 a month for a triple play package of phone, Internet, and television service good for 12 months, with a reduced discount of $89.99 per month for the second year — still a great deal over what Comcast was selling.

He signed up for service in June and was happy with the installation and the service… until the bill came.

Over the last eight months, Caruso has never received a single bill that reflected the offer he signed up for, resulting in monthly calls to customer service lasting between 30 and 75 minutes each.  Every month, Verizon told Caruso the promotion he received never existed, but they would issue certain credits as a gesture of goodwill.

The Star Ledger exhaustively details the entire debacle, but suffice to say, Caruso was a victim because nobody at Verizon applied the promotion to his account.  The company also never bothered to investigate why a customer had to keep calling (eight times in the last eight months) to receive those credits.  The newspaper illustrates how complicated it all got:

In early July, Caruso received the first bill, for $176.44.

It was more than a little confusing: $470.32 in “Current Activity” charges minus $289.96 in “Specials & Promotions” minus $21.24 for a partial month. The bill also included a “Showtime Starz Entertainment Pack” for $16.99 and “Multi-Room DVR Package” for $24.99, neither of which Caruso ordered.

The bill also included a “first bill estimate” showing monthly charges would be $139.31.

“Very confusing collection of charges and credits,” he said. “I paid the full amount to avoid billing issues for my first payment.”

He called Verizon on July 29 to discuss the bill. Caruso was transferred three times, and a rep named Sandy helped. Caruso said she dropped the “Showtime Starz” package and applied a one-time $30 credit. Caruso decided to keep the “Multi-Room DVR Package,” so his future billing should be $104.43. Because of the overpayment on the first bill, the amount due on the August bill would be $43.21.

“I was also told I was getting $9.99 “Epix” movie channel free for three months,” he said. “The FIOS lineup shows Epix is included in my package, but I decided not to fight this.”

Caurso said he paid the August bill, but there were still problems. It showed the normal monthly price to be $133.63.

He called again, and this time spoke to a rep named Jason, who said he had never heard of a $69.99 bundle offer. Caruso faxed a copy of the offer letter to the rep, who then recomputed the bill to reflect the correct package amount.

But the September bill was for $127.26.

Caruso called Sept. 7 and spoke to two different reps. The second rep also denied the existence of a $69.99 bundle offer, but asked Caruso to again fax a copy of the offer.

The rep applied another one-time credit and said the correct amount would now be $92.16.

This continued for the next several months. The bill would be wrong, Caruso would call and the reps would apply credits.

Got it?

After months of endless frustration, Caruso had to appeal to the newspaper’s Bamboozled column for Star Ledger readers seeking a solution to their endless customer service nightmares.

Tom Maguire, a senior vice president for Verizon, figured out what at least 10 Verizon customer service representatives couldn’t — the company never applied the original promotion to Caruso’s account because the service order was not written in a way that would allow the promotion to be applied.  Instead of the two year promotion, Caruso was signed up for month-to-month service, at a price of $129.99 a month, not $69.99.

“They basically dropped the ball from my perspective,” Maguire admitted.

What irritated Maguire (and Caruso even more) is that repeatedly-faxed copies of the promotional offer made no difference.

Caruso’s consolation prizes for his eight month ordeal:

• A direct number to a senior customer service representative already aware of Caruso’s service history;
• A restart of Verizon’s promotion, effectively extending it for nine additional months;
• A multi-room DVR package at a discounted price for the life of his service.

Tips for Living With Verizon:

Keep a copy of the promotional offer you select until it expires. If Verizon does not apply it correctly, or it mysteriously drops off your account at some point, you will have evidence the offer existed.  If you experience a repeated billing problem, ask the representative that answers to transfer you to a senior customer service supervisor.

Time Warner Cable’s Mind Games Threaten Our Relationship

Courtesy: Jacobson

Julie Jacobson chose Time Warner Cable over AT&T for her new Carlsbad, Calif. condo located to the north of San Diego.  The deciding factor: no cable box required for extra sets hooked up to expanded basic cable. (Unfortunately for Jacobson, that won’t be true much longer as Time Warner embarks on a nationwide conversion to a virtually all-digital lineup, which will require extra equipment on most television sets.)

Unfortunately, ever since Jacobson signed up for service, Time Warner has been playing “hard to get.”

Jacobson painfully details her encounters with Time Warner customer service, who had no idea what a CableCARD was (much less an “M-Card” which allows multiple signal streams).  She was also not impressed to discover the “free” HD-DVR promotion on offer evidently only applied to the cardboard box it came in.

“Your ‘free’ HD-DVR comes with an additional $11/month box-rental fee and $11/month service fee,” Jacobson discovered. “The HD-DVR is free + $22/month, which puts TWC pricing into U-verse territory.”

But even that wasn’t enough for Jacobson to declare Time Warner Cable “sucky.”  It was this:

Julie,

Thank you for placing your Time Warner Cable order online. We were unable to complete your order with the information you provided.

Please call us at 855-889-4113 so we can proceed with your service order. Be sure to have your order confirmation number (########) and the four-digit PIN you created during your online order ready when you call. We look forward to hearing from you so we can complete your order as soon as possible.

Thank you for choosing Time Warner Cable.

So I called the number on a Sunday at 3:15 p.m., using the phone number in the email. The office was closed by then. Believe it or not, I started pining for Comcast back in Minnesota. At least their customer service is 24/7.

After being bounced from offices in Wisconsin and North Carolina, she was finally transferred to California, where Diego (with his barely decipherable English) was waiting to not provide customer service:

I’m sorry, but I had a really tough time understanding him. As it turns out, it didn’t really matter because he was flat-out wrong. He told me the old tenants returned their TWC equipment, but they didn’t call to cancel their service; my order wouldn’t go through because there was already an account associated with the address.

“You need to call them to cancel their service,” he said.

“What?! I don’t even know who they are!”

In that case, he said, I could go to the local TWC office and bring them a copy of my lease.

That’s real convenient, given we’re only in town for one day.

So I ask Diego for the store phone number, and he provides it.

“Where is it located?” I ask.

“I don’t know … somewhere in the LA/San Diego area.”

Thanks, that narrows it down.

A more encouraging experience with another representative later on seemed to have everything worked out, until a new message from the company reached her e-mail box earlier today:

3rd Attempt: Please call us to avoid cancellation of your Time Warner Cable order.

Tips for Living With Time Warner Cable:

Time Warner’s system for dealing with new customers always hangs up when it finds existing service already established at an address. We encountered this ourselves and had to arrange for the old owners of our home to arrange for a service disconnection before Time Warner could complete our order for new service. Usually it makes better sense to call and establish service directly with a Time Warner representative over the phone when a complication like this arises. The representative would have identified the problem immediately instead of dispatching cryptic e-mail messages about a generic “problem with your order.”  Calling the local office nearest you is also a great way to cut through red tape and stop your call from being transferred to different call centers.

If your order went horribly wrong and you were inconvenienced, ask a representative to throw in free installation or some other extra promotion for your time and trouble. 

We also suspect that “third attempt” notification was probably associated with the earlier e-mail and not the more encouraging, later experience with another representative by phone.

10-digit dialing is a nuisance in Canada too, where British Columbia and Alberta customers were told to dial the area code for every call.

Verizon FiOS’ “digital phone” product is a far cry from Verizon’s traditional landline service.  Some central New York customers now getting hooked up to the fiber-to-the-home service report they are frustrated because they have to dial an area code for every phone call, even those to friends and neighbors right next door.

Verizon told WSYR-TV that unlike traditional landline service based in your neighborhood, Verizon FiOS phone service is, in fact, a nationwide Voice Over IP (VOIP) service, and uses servers across the country to process phone calls.  Although many traditional VOIP services have since learned ways around the area code limitation, Verizon has not made a similar effort to allow customers to pre-designate an area code.  That would permit Verizon’s servers to assume any seven digit number dialed was within a particular area code and complete the call accordingly.

Instead, Verizon advises customers to learn how to use the included “speed dial” feature to make dialing more convenient.

Verizon’s competitors, including companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable are quick to point out seven digit dialing is available from them, except where multiple overlaid area codes in the same geographic area exist.  So far, parts of western and central New York have endured area code splits, but for now each service area maintains just a single area code.

[flv width=”400″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Dialing area code for Verizon FiOS 1-25-12.mp4[/flv]

WSYR in Syracuse answers viewers’ suggested stories.  Today, it’s about why Verizon FiOS customers are forced to dial 10 numbers for every phone call.  (1 minute)

A western Indiana fiber-to-the-home project first envisioned more than five years ago is finally moving forward as it wins unanimous approval at the Tippecanoe County Redevelopment Commission.

Lafayette and West Lafayette, Ind., home to prestigious Purdue University, has a broadband problem.  Broadband advocates claim current providers Comcast and Frontier Communications underserve Tippecanoe County.  The former has put western Indiana on the “long list” waiting for service upgrades, and Frontier Communications offers little more than slow speed DSL in the region.  While Purdue arranges for its own Internet connectivity, off-campus students and area residents have had to make due with what the local cable and phone company offers, which isn’t much according to the locals.

“Comcast service has recently improved, but there is a big difference between Comcast service in a city like Chicago and what they deliver this part of Indiana,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Nick Jefferson, who tipped us to the recent developments.  “Frontier is a complete waste of time, and they have alienated customers across Indiana after taking over from Verizon Communications.”

In 2005, Tippecanoe County officials met with Verizon to encourage construction of its FiOS fiber-to-the-home network in western Indiana, as it had planned for the eastern Indiana city of Fort Wayne.  But Verizon sold off its Indiana landline operations to Frontier Communications, which has since shown little interest in expanding the fiber to the home network it inherited.  Now the county is considering financing a fiber network itself, to be ultimately run and administered by Cinergy MetroNet, which already provides service in the Indiana communities of Connersville, Greencastle, Huntington, Madison, New Castle, North Manchester, North Vernon, Seymour, Vincennes, and Wabash.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLFI Lafayette Ultra-high-speed net may be headed here 3-21-11.flv[/flv]

WLFI-TV explained the basics of the new fiber-to-the-home network and how it will be paid for in this report from March, 2011.  (2 minutes)

The $40-50 million project would not come out of taxpayer funds directly.  Instead, a novel financing approach would cover construction costs over a 15-20 year period using a combination of MetroNet investor funds and a “tax increment financing” district, which would provide a temporary tax abatement during the period the network is being paid off.  Taxpayer dollars would not be exposed — the financial risks would be to MetroNet and its investors alone.

A fiber to the home service would provide a network capable of gigabit broadband speeds, but historically Cinergy has offered lower speeds to their other Indiana customers, albeit at highly competitive pricing, along with packages of video and phone service.

Larry Oates, head of the West Lafayette redevelopment commission for the project, says the fiber network delivers more than just the promise of better broadband service

“This project could be a great economic development tool,” Oates told The Exponent. “It is up to the businesses and residents who live here to decide what to do with it. We are just facilitating their potential.”

The County Commissioners will decide later whether to give the project a final approval.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLFI Lafayette Tippecanoe County moves forward with plans for Fiber to Home 1-9-12.mp4[/flv]

WLFI in Lafayette reports Tippecanoe’s fiber to the home network has gotten unanimous approval from the country redevelopment commission.  (2 minutes)

North America’s broadband rankings continue to take a beating at the expense of countries deploying fiber optic broadband.  While the United States and Canada cope with aging landline technology and an uncompetitive marketplace that tells consumers they don’t need fiber-fast broadband speed, countries like Bulgaria, Lithuania and Estonia are lighting up 50-100Mbps networks that often charge lower prices than North Americans pay for 1-3Mbps DSL.

Ookla, a global leader in broadband testing and web-based network diagnostic applications, reports that the best performing broadband networks for speed, value, and performance are increasingly in Europe and Asia.  While both the United States and Canada used to be among the world leaders in broadband infrastructure, that is no longer true.

Some examples:

• The United States now scores 31st in average download speed, Canada is 33rd;
• In upload speed, America now ranks 37th, Canada a woeful 69th;
• Ookla’s Household Quality Index, which ranks packet loss and general reliability of home connections found Canada scoring 27th place, the United States 38th;
• At a cost per megabit, neither the US or Canada offers very good value.  The USA ranked 29th ($4.95 per megabit), Canada 33rd ($5.85 per megabit);
• Neither country does a great job delivering the speeds and service promised either.  The USA ranked 25th, Canada 32nd.

Ookla found that while speeds are rising in North America, they are not increasing nearly as fast as in other, higher-ranked countries.  Most of the speed gains in North America come from cable or limited fiber-broadband deployments like Verizon FiOS or community-owned fiber to the home networks.  Wireline ADSL service, which represented a larger proportion of home Internet connections in 2008, continues to lose ground to faster options from cable companies, community-owned broadband, and phone company fiber upgrades.  In eastern Europe, the Baltics, Russia and Ukraine, many of the dramatic boosts in broadband speed and quality come as a result of national fiber network upgrade projects.

While speeds in North America are gradually increasing, both the U.S. and Canada are being outpaced by many countries in Europe and Asia.

While providers in the United States and Canada often dismiss fiber as too costly, Ookla found fiber-based networks delivering some of the world’s best values in broadband.

For example, on a cost-per-megabit basis, Bulgaria’s new fiber networks deliver the world’s cheapest Internet service, at an average of just $0.64 per megabit.  The average broadband speeds in the country are now higher than 21/11Mbps.

Elion headquarters in Tallinn. Elion delivers fiber broadband to homes across Estonia.

Contrast that with average speeds in the United States (12.41/2.97Mbps) and Canada (11.95/1.70Mbps).  Other top scoring countries for cost-per-megabit include:

• Romania $0.97 USD
• Lithuania $1.11 USD
• Ukraine $1.17 USD
• Republic of Moldova $1.41 USD
• Latvia $1.80 USD
• Hungary $2.00 USD
• Slovakia $2.04 USD
• Hong Kong $2.26 USD
• Russia $2.51 USD

In terms of download speed, Estonia’s investment in a national fiber network is now paying dividends, with a dramatic increase in national average broadband speeds to 50/28Mbps.  As new cities join Estonia’s fiber network, speeds take a dramatic upswing.  Contrast average speeds in Saue (101.03Mbps), Viimsi (98.98Mbps), Tallinn (69.80Mbps), and Võru (65.58Mbps) with ADSL-rich Pärnu (12.55Mbps), Paide (12.40Mbps), Rapla (8.93Mbps), and Valga (7.71Mbps).

It is much the same story in other fiber-rich countries, where broadband speeds far exceed the averages in the United States and Canada:

Look what happens to Estonia's broadband speed rankings when it switched on its national fiber broadband network.

• Lithuania 31.65 Mbps
• South Korea 31.44 Mbps
• Latvia 25.42 Mbps
• Sweden 24.62 Mbps
• Romania 24.47 Mbps
• Netherlands 24.36 Mbps
• Singapore 22.94 Mbps
• Bulgaria 21.12 Mbps
• Iceland 20.53 Mbps

Despite all of the bad news, the cable industry’s trade publication Multichannel News tried to find victory in the jaws of defeat, noting things could be worse… if they ran traditional phone companies.

Cable operators delivered the fastest average broadband download speeds in 2011 — with major MSOs easily blasting by rival telco and satellite Internet services — according to data from independent testing firm Ookla.

For the full year, the six fastest residential Internet service providers in the U.S. based on average download speed were Comcast, Charter Communications, Cablevision Systems, Time Warner Cable and Insight Communications.

[…] Comcast and Charter delivered average download speeds of 17.19 Megabits per second, followed by Cablevision at 16.40 Mbps, Cox at 15.76 Mbps, TWC at 14.41 Mbps and Insight at 14.22 Mbps.

Verizon Communications fared better than its telco peers with an average download speed of 12.94 Mbps, thanks to FiOS Internet, its fiber-to-the-home service that provides up to 150 Mbps downstream. And overall, Verizon had the highest upstream speeds with an average of 7.41 Mbps. Still, the company’s legacy DSL services dragged down overall speeds.

Behind DSL were woefully slower speeds from the nation’s wireless ISPs (which include 3G broadband from large companies like Verizon Wireless and AT&T), and perennially last place satellite Internet.

Moffett

Despite repeated claims by providers that consumers don’t need fiber-fast broadband speeds, industry analyst Craig Moffett at Sanford Bernstein tells a different story:

“Technology adoption is creating a feedback loop that increasingly favors cable’s physical infrastructure,” Moffett wrote in a research note last month. “As more people are served by higher-speed connections, more and more applications are evolving to take advantage of them. Customers with lower-speed connections are increasingly being forced to upgrade to higher speed connections… or be left behind.”

The conclusion reached by Multichannel News columnist Todd Spangler:

“The relative broadband speeds of cable vs. telco isn’t merely an academic curiosity: Major providers are increasingly touting Internet performance in their marketing as they fight for consumers’ dollars.”

Unfortunately for the cable industry, although DOCSIS 3 upgrades have afforded dramatic increases in broadband download speeds, upload speeds lag behind.  Fiber to the home networks are best positioned to achieve victory in the global broadband race.  That is important not only because it delivers consumer dollars to the best provider in town, but fuels the further development of the digital, knowledge-based economy North America increasingly seeks to lead.