Some communities are luckier than others.  When your cable company boosts rates, some consumers have another provider available, letting them take their business elsewhere.  That’s especially true if there is another provider in town that doesn’t require you to attach a satellite dish to your roof.

For those who have no other alternative, it’s time for the family meeting to discuss what action, if any, will be taken to deal with a bill that relentlessly increases year after year.  The solutions usually come down to “grin and bear it” when paying the higher price, start dropping channels, or go cold turkey and get rid of cable altogether.

In economically troubled western New York, just accepting a higher bill isn’t always an option.  For residents of Buffalo, many have the choice of switching from Time Warner Cable to Verizon FiOS.  Many Queen City residents have threatened to do just that, often extracting concessions from Time Warner Cable when they call to cancel.

Stop the Cap! reader Marion, who lives in Amherst, wrote she was outraged to receive word of yet another rate hike from Time Warner Cable.

“Our family had been pestered by Verizon ever since FiOS came around our area, but having the phone company tear up your house to rewire everything and change your e-mail address was a real hassle, so we just kept Time Warner,” she writes.  “I’m fed up paying for all these filthy channels I never watch and I frankly can’t afford to keep paying them more and more every year whenever they have one of their programmer disputes.”

Marion called to cancel service and was transferred to a “retention specialist” who is trained to rescue departing customers before they cut the cord or show up at the cable office with their set top boxes in hand, waiting to turn them in.

“They always want to argue what a great value they are and how messy and time-consuming FiOS is to install, and you have to pay extra for HD channels I’m too old to appreciate anyway, but I just kept saying ‘cancel’ and said the only thing I cared about was the price,” Marion adds. “In the end they offered to cut the bill twenty dollars a month and give me a discount only new customers would get if I agreed to stay with a term plan.  I decided I would, for now.  I’m on a fixed income and with no Social Security increase this year, the price is very important to me.”

Alan Pergament is the TV Critic for the Buffalo News

Time Warner Cable is well aware when customers leave.  The company’s “churn” rate, measuring departing customers, has been on the increase in highly competitive service areas.  Consumers have learned to use new customer promotional offers from the competition against their current provider, threatening to cancel if they refuse to match them.  The costs of getting those customers back can be higher than just handing over a temporary discount, so many providers relent and give customers the lower price they want.

In Buffalo, convincing customers the local cable company is a better value and offers better service than the fiber-based FiOS competition might keep customers from thinking about switching in the first place.  That’s the idea, anyway.

The Buffalo News Tuesday published an interview with Time Warner’s Jeff Unaitis on the recently-announced rate hike and what changes the company is making to try and hold onto their customers.

Unaitis started with a range of new and upcoming improvements the cable operator is planning to make across upstate New York:

• The 24-hour news channel YNN —or Your News Now—will be the title of all TWC news channels across the state shortly to give it a “seamless news presence across the state.”

“You are beginning to see more shared coverage across the state,” said Unaitis.

Additionally, viewers in Western New York will get an upconverted HD version of YNN on Channel 709 by April or so. In other words, it isn’t shot in HD but it is HD quality. It already has been done on TWC’s news channel in Syracuse. “The reality is when you are accustomed to see HD content going back to something that is standard digital, let alone analog, is more difficult viewing,” Unaitis said.

• A new interactive, user-friendly, online programming guide will be available soon. One bonus: It will be easier to order On Demand titles.

In the next few months, the satellite feature celebrated in the ads with “Pysch” star Dule Hill that allows subscribers to program their DVRs remotely while they are away from home will soon be available to TWC subscribers with this guide.

• TWC is looking at the possibility of expanding “significantly more” HD channels that the public has requested. BBCAmerica, Lifetime and all the Viacom channels (VH1, MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon among them) are among the most requested. “Some of them are contingent on carriage deals,” said Unaitis. “Others we do have the rights to carry, we just haven’t done the engineering required to have them yet.”

• The popular Start Over feature — which is up to 90 channels here and allows viewers to start shows from the beginning during the time window it airs — will be augmented some time this year by a new “Look Back” feature. “Look Back” enables viewers to watch shows for up to 72 hours after they air rather than just the window in which they air.

Unaitis added that viewers may not realize that the Free on HD Demand channel offers subscribers many of the same programs that are available on Prime Time On Demand, but in HD.

YNN provides 24/7 local news coverage on individual channels in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Albany

The newspaper’s TV critic, Alan Pergament, noted the service changes, but immediately pelted Unaitis with the concerns local residents actually have about their Time Warner Cable service.  To save time, and because of complaints I’ve had about my verbosity, I’ve boiled it all down for you:

Q. Why isn’t Time Warner Sports-Net, the local sports channel, in HD?

A. Because it costs too much, but Unaitis claimed the channel will be upconverted to HD, which will “give it an HD-quality signal.”  Not really.

Q. Buffalo gets Canadian networks from Toronto-area stations on their lineup.  Why aren’t they available in HD?

A. Who knows.

Q. Why can’t people pay for only the channels they want?

A. Because programmers won’t allow it, and the cable company would end up charging you the same price you pay for 75 channels today that you’ll pay for 20 channels tomorrow. Plus, you’ll need a box on every TV in the house and that also increases your bill.

Q. How much do western New Yorker’s pay for YNN?

A. None of your business.

Q. How many subscribers does Time Warner Cable have in western New York?

A. None of your business.

Q. Why do those in western NY pay a higher price for cable service than elsewhere?

A. Unaitis didn’t know if that was true or not, but then explained it was because of the weather, labor costs, high state taxes and the difficulty building and maintaining the cable lines.

Okay, then.

Frontier's headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Frontier Communications has dismissed the proposition of Google constructing a 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home network, telling readers of the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle that most users don’t need ultra-fast Internet access.

Ann Burr, chairman and general manager of Frontier Communications of Rochester made the remark in response to news that citizens and business leaders are excited about promoting Monroe County as a potential test location for Google’s fiber network experiment.

Frontier, which serves Rochester and most of the 585 area code, accused Google of having “a poor track record of following through on such proposals and that creating a fiber-optic network from scratch would be enormously expensive.”

Pot to kettle.  Frontier’s illusory promises for fiber optic connectivity in states like West Virginia, where it seeks to take over the majority of the state’s phone customers from Verizon, never seem to include specific assurances such projects will reach customer homes.

“If Google built its own network, we estimate it would cost $5,000 per household,” Burr told the newspaper.

That’s as exaggerated as Frontier’s DSL speed claims.

Verizon Communications, which is in the business of providing fiber connectivity to the home, disclosed the true costs are far lower than that, and continue to decline.  In the summer of 2008, Verizon’s Policy Blog noted:

Capital Costs
– We said our target per home passed was $700 by 2010, and we are ahead of plan to achieve that objective. In fact, we’ve already beaten the target.
– We said our target per home connected was $650 by 2010, and we’re on plan to hit that target.

No wonder Frontier doesn’t contemplate providing fiber service to customers.  It created its own sticker shock.

Still, the local phone company didn’t want to slam the door entirely on Google’s foot, suggesting it would be willing to talk about leasing space on Google’s network if it launched in the Flower City.

Frontier’s claim that customers don’t believe fast broadband service is important is a remarkable admission, particularly for a company that increasingly depends on broadband service to stop revenue loss from customers dropping traditional phone lines.  That philosophy should be carefully considered by state officials and utility commissions reviewing Frontier’s proposal to take over Verizon phone lines in several states.  Do communities want to receive broadband from a company that dismisses faster broadband speed as irrelevant for the majority of its customers?

Perhaps the remarks came with the understanding Frontier isn’t capable of delivering 21st century broadband speeds over its antique network of copper telephone wire anyway.

That’s the point Time Warner Cable has made repeatedly, especially in the Rochester metro area.  The cable operator routinely promotes its Road Runner cable modem service’s speed advantages over Frontier’s DSL product.  Frontier promises up to 10Mbps, but often manages far less (3.1Mbps was my personal experience with Frontier DSL last April.)  Time Warner Cable promises up to 15Mbps, and often exceeds that with its “PowerBoost” feature.  In rural areas, the phone company tops out at “up to 3Mbps.”  Time Warner Cable notes most of its new broadband customers come at the expense of phone companies like Frontier.  DSL customers switch because they do care about broadband speed.

Judging from the excitement in Rochester over Google’s proposal, Frontier’s dismissal of a fiber optic future seems out of touch, and potentially a drag on the local community’s economic future.

Rochester increasingly will become a broadband backwater because of anemic broadband competition from Frontier Communications.  Its reliance on ADSL technology, more than a decade old, to deliver distance-sensitive broadband service looks out of place compared with the rest of New York State.  Major cities throughout New York are being wired with fiber optic service by Verizon Communications.  Verizon FiOS delivers up to 50Mbps service.  Frontier maxes out at far lower speeds and defines an acceptable amount of broadband usage on its DSL service at just 5GB per month. Using Verizon’s FiOS fiber network, you’d exceed Frontier’s entire month’s ‘allowance’ in less than 15 minutes at Verizon’s speeds.

Rochester is one of many communities challenged by the transition away from a manufacturing economy towards a high technology future.  A world class fiber optic network doesn’t just benefit big business.  It spurs revolutionary growth in medicine, education, software development, telecommunications, and more.  That means good paying jobs.  For consumers with fiber to the home, it opens the door to telecommuting on a whole new level, distance learning opportunities, new ways to access information and entertainment, and allows home-based entrepreneurs to develop new businesses.

With Verizon FiOS unavailable to Rochester indefinitely, and Frontier unwilling to make appropriate investments to keep this city competitive with the rest of upstate New York, those jobs and economic benefits can go to Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, Westchester County, and metropolitan New York City.  We’ll be held back on the frontier with Frontier and its ideas of rationed broadband service.

[flv width=”360″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WROC Ontario County Makes Bid for Super Fast Internet 2-11-2010.flv[/flv]

WROC-TV in Rochester reports that Ontario County, to the southeast of Rochester, may have a built-in advantage with an already-installed fiber loop covering much of the county.  The county has a team working on a formal application to Google to provide service in communities like Geneva and Canandaigua.  Frontier’s claims that consumers don’t care about fast broadband speed are belied by the excitement of residents of both counties. (2 minutes)

Local media warns residents to look first before opening the door to potential trouble

As many as five men wearing Verizon jackets have been ringing doorbells in the Bradenton, Florida area seeking entry into residents’ homes claiming to be service or sales representatives.  Police are concerned an unsuspecting resident may admit the impostors unaware of their likely criminal intentions.  Bright House Networks, the area’s cable operator, has also faced phony representatives peddling its products.

With increased competition between phone companies and cable operators for your telecommunications business, many providers hire third party door-to-door sales personnel to promote services, especially when new service options become available.  Verizon uses 20/20 Companies, an Ft. Worth, Texas-based door to door marketing firm to sell its Verizon FiOS fiber to the home service.  20/20 Companies promises its clients “a thorough, national background check and a 10-panel drug screen” for all of its sales representatives to “protect the client, the brand, and, most importantly, the customer.”

Still, consumers may not be aware of what to consider before opening their doors to uninvited knocks.  It has happened to me when a fake Frontier Communications “representative” knocked on my door a few years ago with lots of personal questions but no answers:

1. Cable and telecommunications companies do not make unscheduled service calls.  If a representative claims they “detected a problem,” tell them you will call the company yourself to schedule an appointment.
2. If the doorbell rings and you weren’t expecting anyone, consider simply ignoring it.  At least verify to your satisfaction the identity of the visitor before opening the door or even interacting with him or her.
3. Sales representatives and other company personnel should have clear, unambiguous, professionally-produced identity badges.  A shirt sticker or generic jacket with a logo on it doesn’t come close.
4. Trust your instincts.  If something doesn’t seem right, it probably isn’t.  Don’t hesitate to contact police.  Many communities require all door to door sales personnel to have a peddler’s license on file with the local town or city government.  If they don’t, police can charge them.
5. Alert your neighbors.  You may have been aware enough to avoid a potential problem, but an overly trusting neighbor might not.  They’ll appreciate you looking out for them.

Consumers concerned about this type of door to door sales activity should contact service providers and tell them you don’t appreciate at-home intrusions and that you hope the company will modify its marketing practices to discontinue unscheduled marketing visits.  Instead, suggest they send sales teams only to homes that specifically request an in-person visit, with an appointment.

[flv width=”480″ height=”340″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTSP Tampa Police warn of Verizon and Bright House service tech impostors 2-9-2010.flv[/flv]

WTSP-TV in Tampa warns southwestern Florida residents about fake employees trying to gain entry into local residents’ homes.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”540″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFLA Tampa Fake Verizon Employees 2-9-2010.flv[/flv]

WFLA-TV in Tampa tells viewers to ask for ID before opening a door to a telecommunications company employee.  (2 minutes)

We’ve heavily covered the proposed sale of Verizon landline service to Frontier Communications since the deal was announced last spring.  This should not come as a big surprise, considering Frontier Communications’ decision to insert a 5GB monthly usage limit in their Acceptable Use Policy in the summer of 2008 was what instigated the launch of Stop the Cap! in the first place.  Frontier’s decision was boneheaded at best in a city like Rochester with a very aggressive cable competitor only too willing to bash Frontier for implementing it if they thought it would win more customers.

But of course Frontier Communications’ Rochester operation is an anomaly for ‘rural America’s phone company.’  For the majority of rural customers, it’s far easier to slap customers around with a usage cap and 1-3Mbps DSL service when those customers have few, if any practical alternatives.  Unfortunately, there is real money to be made from their business plan serving frequently non-competitive communities with incrementally-upgraded “just enough” broadband service with unfriendly terms and conditions attached.

In several of the 14 states impacted by the proposed sale, the relatively small number of customers involved made it easy for regulators to quickly approve the proposal with few conditions attached. The deal flew under the radar and got scant press in most of these states.  Washington, Ohio, and West Virginia are another matter.  Regulators are taking a closer look at the deal in all three states where most of the controversy is taking place.  The deal is most contentious in West Virginia, where Verizon’s exit threatens to turn most of the state’s landline business over to Frontier Communications.

Stop the Cap! has been reviewing the public comments left on more than a dozen news sites, forums, and printed letters to the editor regarding the deal.  We’ve seen comments obviously coming from Frontier employees, union members, politicians, business leaders, and competitors.  But the vast majority come from ordinary consumers who have concerns about what the deal will do to their telephone and broadband service.  Most of the comments from consumers that embrace the sale don’t do so because they are fans of Frontier.  They simply loathe Verizon and want an alternative.  Boiled down, the consensus among those in favor of Frontier taking over is “let them try… they can’t do any worse than Verizon.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCHS Charleston PSC Phone Hearing 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WCHS-TV in Charleston covers West Virginia’s Public Service Commission hearings reviewing the proposed deal.  Frontier employees arrived in Charleston to lobby for the sale. (1 minute)

Desperate for Broadband

There are a lot of West Virginians who still have no broadband options.  Frontier claims Verizon provides only 60 percent of their customers with a broadband option — DSL service that tops out at 7Mpbs, if you live in an urban area.  Those that don’t have often waited years for Verizon to extend DSL service into their communities or neighborhoods.  It’s a problem common in mountainous, often rural states like West Virginia where infrastructure costs can be prohibitive.  Customers believe that Frontier Communications will tolerate a lower return on their investment providing DSL service to those customers Verizon ignored.

Promising to expand broadband service in rural, unserved areas is a common sales point for all of the prior Verizon sell-offs.  Hawaiian Telcom promised improved broadband service and speed.  Fairpoint promised to expand DSL availability to 75 percent of all access lines within 18 months of the sale, 85 percent within two years and 95 percent within five years.  Frontier Communications promises to expand broadband service as well, claiming they already provide 92 percent of their existing West Virginia customers with the option.  Of course, Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint both reneged on their commitments before going bankrupt.  Frontier Communications hasn’t yet been held to any specific commitment or timeline in West Virginia as part of their proposed takeover of service.

Consumer Reports rated TV, phone, and Internet providers, including Verizon and Frontier, in its February 2010 issue

To those suffering with dial-up or satellite fraudband, -any- broadband option seems like a miracle, even if it turns out to be 1-3Mbps DSL service with a 5GB allowance.  But as those kinds of anemic speeds arrive, cutting edge multimedia-rich broadband applications will become increasingly mainstream and leave these customers behind, again.  With a 5GB usage limit, it wouldn’t matter anyway, because customers will never be able to take advantage of services that will rapidly blow through those limits.  Make no mistake, a user’s broadband experience at 1.5Mbps with a 5GB allowance is going to be considerably different than a customer enjoying online multimedia from a cable provider or the next generation broadband service from Verizon FiOS or AT&T’s U-verse.  Think e-mail and basic web browsing, and that’s about all.

What kind of broadband experience does Frontier Communications bring?  This month, Consumer Reports rated Frontier dead last among DSL providers that own and operate their own broadband networks (subscription required).  The magazine rated 27 regional fiber, cable, and satellite providers and Frontier’s DSL ended up #19 on the list, the lowest rating of any DSL provider selling service on its own network.  Only Earthlink, which usually buys access on other providers’ networks came in lower among DSL providers.  Verizon actually scored higher than Frontier.

Frontier’s DSL service merited a 67 out of 100 score, rating only fair on value, speed, reliability, and customer support, based on 56,080 Consumer Reports subscribers who have a home Internet account.

Frontier’s phone service rated even lower, second to last in the survey.  Frontier was rated fair on value, reliability and call quality.  Only Mediacom did worse.  Verizon scored much better on reliability.  The magazine’s survey of phone companies was based on 37,484 respondents with phone service and was completed in the spring of 2009.

The consumer magazine did not recommend DSL for broadband access, suggesting consumers would do better with fiber optic broadband first, and cable modem service second.

Union Bashing – The enemy of my enemy is my friend

A significant minority of comments were focused entirely on union bashing, completely ignoring the specifics of the Frontier-Verizon sale.  All these people knew was that if the Communications Workers of America or other union was involved, they were the “real problem,” accusing union bosses of opposing the deal until they were paid off.

Nonsense.

Reality trumps anti-union talking points.  Consumers can review for themselves who correctly predicted the outcome of the last two deals of the recent past.  They were the CWA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who accurately identified the service problems, the network transition problems, the debt load that prevented service expansion and upgrades, and the eventual bankruptcies experienced at Hawaiian Telcom and FairPoint Communications.  It turns out that asking front line employees who work in the office and out in the field maintaining the network are well positioned to give an honest assessment of these transactions that others seek to candy coat to get the deal done.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAZ Charleston Frontier Defends Deal 1-12-2010.flv[/flv]

WSAZ-TV in Charleston delivered this decidedly pro-Frontier news report on the company’s efforts to counter opposition to the proposed sale. (3 minutes)

The Opposition

A large number of comments from those who oppose the deal believe they will actually be far worse off with Frontier.  Most relate the experiences of themselves or their friends and family who live in Frontier service areas, and they’re unhappy with Frontier’s poor customer service, reliability, and slow speed DSL.  Many were also unhappy with Frontier’s automatically-renewing contracts committing customers to stay with the company or face a steep early cancellation penalty.  Many more lament the lack of a future with Verizon fiber optics.

David Swanson, who blogs from his home in Golden Valley, Arizona just dumped Frontier for his local cable provider – Golden Valley Cable & Communications.  He says he was overpaying for Frontier’s DSL and phone package.  Together, after fees and taxes, $90 a month went to Frontier and $73 a month went to DirecTV for television service.  With his new cable bundle, he pays $100 a month for everything.  He uses Boost mobile for his phone, and has no need for a landline.

Reviews on DSL Reports aren’t exactly positive about Frontier either.

One Rochester customer isn’t happy with the “spotty service” he’s experienced on Frontier’s aging copper wire infrastructure, noting they don’t seem to be in any hurry to upgrade facilities in western New York.  He’s stuck with unreliable DSL service far slower than what Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service can provide. Another customer in Lowville, New York admits he has to live with Frontier’s slow speed DSL because there is no other provider available.  In Kingman, Arizona one customer rated the company’s DSL service “slightly better than nothing.”

Even customers who had had good things to say about Frontier in forums often acknowledge their service simply isn’t a good value when considering the high cost charged for the slow speed received.

What Can Be Done?

At this point, it is critical impacted customers contact their state utility commission and state representatives and tell them this deal does not work for you.  It is true Verizon wants out of these service areas, and should they win the right to withdraw someone will have to assume control of landline operations in these communities.  But the terms and conditions for the company seeking to provide service should favor customers and not the Wall Street dealmakers.  Strict financial pre-conditions should be in place to guarantee the buyer is up to the task of providing service and upgrades.  Historically, it’s been far too easy to simply renege on the deal with a quick trip to Bankruptcy Court to shed the debt these deals pile on, and be rid of the service commitments that were part of the approval process.

A company that believes they’ll earn plenty from this deal should be spending plenty to provide quality broadband service starting at 10Mbps, not the 1-3Mbps service Frontier provides most of its rural service areas.  What chance do communities in West Virginia have to stay competitive in a digital economy that requires faster broadband access without the ridiculously low usage limits Frontier includes in their customer agreements?  In fact, usage limits and other Internet Overcharging schemes should be explicitly banned as part of any sales agreement.

Holding Verizon responsible for the outcome of deals that benefit them and their shareholders while sticking customers with a bankrupt provider must be considered.  An important component of past Verizon’s landline-dumping-deals involves the Reverse Morris Trust — delivering a tax-free transaction for Verizon and piles of debt for the buyer. That puts all the risk on ratepayers, lower level employees who are among the first to go when cost-cutting begins, and head-scratching regulators wondering where it all went wrong.  The only ones not doing any hand-wringing are Verizon’s accountants and the executive management of both companies who conjure up such deals.  That’s because they are rarely held accountable, and often win retention bonuses even while a company is mired in bankruptcy.

Regulators should insist Verizon play a fundamental role in insuring that customers are protected even after the deal closes, honoring commitments and financing operations should the buyer fail soon after the sale is complete.  Under these conditions, customers are protected and Verizon might think twice about structuring a deal that loads the buyer down in insurmountable debt.

“This deal is driven by greed — and we can learn from Northern New England’s and Hawaii’s experience to make sure it does not come to pass here or in the other 13 states,” said CWA’s District Two Vice-President Ron Collins, who has been leading the campaign in West Virginia.

Liberally borrowing from ABC’s Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, and those home improvement shows on HGTV, Verizon has been producing their own “home technology makeovers” for infomercials airing in different Verizon service areas, designed to pitch their fiber to the home FiOS product line. It’s a non-threatening introduction for those not so technology-inclined, but love the premise of home makeovers.

The Reyes family of Clearwater, Florida is the latest to receive a Verizon-inspired makeover this March, which will air later as an infomercial in the Tampa Bay area.

The family was chosen from those who auditioned for the role during the past two months.

Verizon traditionally sets up each show by illustrating the challenges busy families face when trying to work with outdated electronics.  It’s also a great chance to bash the competition, suggesting their cable reception isn’t so great, their calls to 911 are broken up and unclear, and their Internet is slow and generally lousy.  At this point, Bright House Networks, Tampa’s predominate cable company, is supposed to be squirming, because you can bet these families aren’t complaining about Verizon phone service or Verizon DSL.

After the family leaves the home, a bandwagon of Verizon workers and self-described “Design,” “Tech,” and “FiOS”-Gurus show up and replace their obsolete equipment with Verizon’s family of products, ranging from FiOS for their television, phone, and broadband needs, and some extra goodies thrown in from Verizon Wireless for mobility.  Add some new electronics and some room makeovers and the job is complete.

When the family returns, they are suitably impressed with Verizon’s products (which they presumably obtain for free, at least for awhile), the company throws a block party for the entire neighborhood, and everyone goes away with a positive feeling about the company.

“I like the concept of the show, how one company can bring so much happiness to a family just by changing their home technology,” said Jessica Reyes. “It may seem simple to some people, but I know this will have a huge impact on our family.”

See?

Actually, it’s a brilliant execution of marketing to those who don’t suddenly start drooling at the mere mention of FiOS in their neighborhood.  For plenty of Americans, a decidedly non-technical demonstration of the technology products Verizon sells is a much better way to sell service to those who think fiber is a matter of diet, not home entertainment.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon MyHome 2.0.mp4[/flv]

Verizon’s promotional reel for My Home 2.0 shows home technology makeovers, and can’t resist taking a few pokes at the competition’s service. (1 minute)