Schneiderman: Spectrum-Time Warner defrauded customers on internet service(blog.timesunion.com)
blog.timesunion.com
Schneiderman: Spectrum-Time Warner defrauded customers on internet service
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/271821/schneiderman-spectrum-time-warner-defrauded-deceived-customers-on-internet-service/
53 comments
I haven't thought this completely through perhaps, but I've often thought one extremely simple regulation that might have a lot of good effects would be this:
ISPs must charge customers per byte transferred. In other words, no all you can eat plans allowed, usage based pricing only. This has the benefit of aligning consumer and ISP goals in the sense that providing fast service allows ISPs to make more money, so they are incentivized to provide high quality service built on high quality infrastructure. If the Internet is not working, they make no money. If it is slow, they make less. On the consumer side, it incentivizes efficient use of bandwidth.
Of course, this is only one piece of the puzzle. The other piece is that most ISPs have a defacto monopoly in their region. Not sure how we can solve this one. This is partially caused by bad decision by municipal governments, industry collusion, and it seems in part by just the nature of running physical utilities to homes and businesses (many regions also have electric, water, sewage, and gas monopolies).
ISPs must charge customers per byte transferred. In other words, no all you can eat plans allowed, usage based pricing only. This has the benefit of aligning consumer and ISP goals in the sense that providing fast service allows ISPs to make more money, so they are incentivized to provide high quality service built on high quality infrastructure. If the Internet is not working, they make no money. If it is slow, they make less. On the consumer side, it incentivizes efficient use of bandwidth.
Of course, this is only one piece of the puzzle. The other piece is that most ISPs have a defacto monopoly in their region. Not sure how we can solve this one. This is partially caused by bad decision by municipal governments, industry collusion, and it seems in part by just the nature of running physical utilities to homes and businesses (many regions also have electric, water, sewage, and gas monopolies).
Charging by the byte would disincentive users from exploring the Internet.
That effectively kills the Internet as we know it.
That effectively kills the Internet as we know it.
Well, sure.I for one think it is great for people to travel to far away places, but I still support charging plane fare based on the distance traveled. Like fuel and clean air, radio spectrum and fiber wires are both physically limited resources and it makes sense to incentivize efficient use of them.
You can browse thousands of web pages of text for the same bandwidth cost as 1 HD video. The way we use bandwidth today (animate gifs, ugh) is wasteful and makes everyone's internet more expensive.
You can browse thousands of web pages of text for the same bandwidth cost as 1 HD video. The way we use bandwidth today (animate gifs, ugh) is wasteful and makes everyone's internet more expensive.
The bandwidth capacity already exists from all the dark fiber installed nearly 20 years ago.
The issue is mainly with monopolies and Oligopolies of the ISP and telecoms providers.
The issue is mainly with monopolies and Oligopolies of the ISP and telecoms providers.
Seriously. It amazes me how ignorant some people are to what the Internet actually is.
I have google fiber. The speeds great and blows pretty much every commenter here out of the water.
So why am I posting? I'll tell you why. I have found a perverse interest in the fact it took google 18 months to drag fiber literally 250 feet to my house. I measured it. My neighbor had it. It took them 18 months. They kept telling me every quarter, it should just be two more months at the latest.
Do you know how long it takes cable companies to repair a downed power line?
Not 18 damn months! And that's if the power line is beamed up by aliens and disappears. Requiring an entirely new pole and cable run.
My point is there is no panacea so far. Cable companies suck, and milk the copper tit cash cow for all they can. They won't upgrade their infrastructure and will not compete with google fiber and other high speed offerings. But they do get work done on lines pretty fast.
Google screams in infrastructure but sucks at actual deployment. I'm really unimpressed with google. Gmail, android, fiber they just suck imo.
I'm more convinced now than ever that laws need to be revoked and cities need to deploy their own fiber to the home network at tax dollar expense and operate it like a utility. Open the backbone for leasing as well to interested parties at a fair price.
It's clear telcos and cable have a chokehold on the legislative. Things won't get any better. Competition won't increase. It's way beyond time to nuke the current system from orbit.
So why am I posting? I'll tell you why. I have found a perverse interest in the fact it took google 18 months to drag fiber literally 250 feet to my house. I measured it. My neighbor had it. It took them 18 months. They kept telling me every quarter, it should just be two more months at the latest.
Do you know how long it takes cable companies to repair a downed power line?
Not 18 damn months! And that's if the power line is beamed up by aliens and disappears. Requiring an entirely new pole and cable run.
My point is there is no panacea so far. Cable companies suck, and milk the copper tit cash cow for all they can. They won't upgrade their infrastructure and will not compete with google fiber and other high speed offerings. But they do get work done on lines pretty fast.
Google screams in infrastructure but sucks at actual deployment. I'm really unimpressed with google. Gmail, android, fiber they just suck imo.
I'm more convinced now than ever that laws need to be revoked and cities need to deploy their own fiber to the home network at tax dollar expense and operate it like a utility. Open the backbone for leasing as well to interested parties at a fair price.
It's clear telcos and cable have a chokehold on the legislative. Things won't get any better. Competition won't increase. It's way beyond time to nuke the current system from orbit.
> I have found a perverse interest in the fact it took google 18 months to drag fiber literally 250 feet to my house
Did you ever get an official response on the reason for the delay?
The reason I'm asking is because I wonder if there could be a local ordinance or government interdiction that needed to be overcome in order to make what, on its face, seems like a relatively simple change. Incumbent utility companies tend to have a more streamlined process for requesting changes due to their familiarity and rapport with the local government processes and personnel.
Did you ever get an official response on the reason for the delay?
The reason I'm asking is because I wonder if there could be a local ordinance or government interdiction that needed to be overcome in order to make what, on its face, seems like a relatively simple change. Incumbent utility companies tend to have a more streamlined process for requesting changes due to their familiarity and rapport with the local government processes and personnel.
The reason it took 18 months was "a crushed conduit". That was the only thing holding them up. And it took them 18 months to dig it up and repair it.
No one takes that long to repair infrastructure. No one! Not electricity companies. Not gas companies. Not cable companies. Not telcos. Google should be ASHAMED they took a year and a half to fix that! And should have given me 18 months free service to make up for it.
Also google bills a month ahead. Who does that?? Who bills for services not yet rendered??
Yeah I'm not not impressed with google. At all. I can't fathom they were able to get as big as they did.
And as far as ordinances and interdiction that was supposed to be the reason Kansas City was the first google fiber city. Because the city relaxed a bunch of regs so it would be easier for google to deploy fiber. Easier.
No one takes that long to repair infrastructure. No one! Not electricity companies. Not gas companies. Not cable companies. Not telcos. Google should be ASHAMED they took a year and a half to fix that! And should have given me 18 months free service to make up for it.
Also google bills a month ahead. Who does that?? Who bills for services not yet rendered??
Yeah I'm not not impressed with google. At all. I can't fathom they were able to get as big as they did.
And as far as ordinances and interdiction that was supposed to be the reason Kansas City was the first google fiber city. Because the city relaxed a bunch of regs so it would be easier for google to deploy fiber. Easier.
> Also google bills a month ahead. Who does that?? Who bills for services not yet rendered??
TimeWarner does.
https://www.timewarnercable.com/en/support/faqs/faqs-account...
TimeWarner does.
https://www.timewarnercable.com/en/support/faqs/faqs-account...
I think it mostly boils down to fixed-price vs usage-based billing. It seems like utility companies that do usage-based billing (cellphone service providers, electricity, water, etc) typically bill for the previous month so that they can wait for the usage metrics to come in.
For fixed-price services like cable service, video subscription services, housing, etc. I've had a consistent experience of being asked to pay for the next month up front. (They typically phrase this as "at the beginning of the billing cycle" on their terms of service.) I'm guessing the reason is that when it's done this way it reduces the risk of the customer defaulting on the amount after the service has already been consumed.
> Monthly charges are billed at the beginning of your billing cycle and may take a few days after the billing date to appear on your account.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/27
> We automatically bill your Payment Method on the calendar day corresponding to commencement of your subscription.
https://www.hulu.com/terms
> You pay for your subscription in advance of the covered month.
http://help.hbonow.com/app/answers/detailHBO/a_id/139/~/how-...
For fixed-price services like cable service, video subscription services, housing, etc. I've had a consistent experience of being asked to pay for the next month up front. (They typically phrase this as "at the beginning of the billing cycle" on their terms of service.) I'm guessing the reason is that when it's done this way it reduces the risk of the customer defaulting on the amount after the service has already been consumed.
> Monthly charges are billed at the beginning of your billing cycle and may take a few days after the billing date to appear on your account.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/27
> We automatically bill your Payment Method on the calendar day corresponding to commencement of your subscription.
https://www.hulu.com/terms
> You pay for your subscription in advance of the covered month.
http://help.hbonow.com/app/answers/detailHBO/a_id/139/~/how-...
Somewhat off-topic, but whenever you have trouble with customer service ripping you off or giving you a hard time, there is a magical incantation that works almost every time:
"If $company does not refund/provide the service that I paid for, my next call will be to the State Attorney General of $homestate and the State Attorney General of the state your company is incorporated in, for charges of fraud."
It's the upgraded version of "I want to speak with your supervisor," and it has never failed me.
"If $company does not refund/provide the service that I paid for, my next call will be to the State Attorney General of $homestate and the State Attorney General of the state your company is incorporated in, for charges of fraud."
It's the upgraded version of "I want to speak with your supervisor," and it has never failed me.
FYI, for banks it's the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [1] or your state banking regulator, e.g. the Department of Financial Services [2] in New York.
[1] http://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
[2] http://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumer/fileacomplaint.htm
[1] http://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
[2] http://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumer/fileacomplaint.htm
I have also used this for fraudulent threatening debt.
My grad school was trying to charge me for a semester I did not attend which was ridiculous considering I was getting a research stipend for much more than my tuition in my comp sci PhD program. Every year or so they would start harassing me again, when the supervisor trick stopped working, I threatened multiple law suits and contacting the State Attorney General and I haven't heard from them again.
My grad school was trying to charge me for a semester I did not attend which was ridiculous considering I was getting a research stipend for much more than my tuition in my comp sci PhD program. Every year or so they would start harassing me again, when the supervisor trick stopped working, I threatened multiple law suits and contacting the State Attorney General and I haven't heard from them again.
I think that works if the customer service person understands that... or even cares.
Many customer service workers are underpaid/overworked and DGAF.
Many customer service workers are underpaid/overworked and DGAF.
You don't drop that line until you're talking to a supervisor. Also, depending on what your internet is provided over and your local laws, "public utilities commission" can be another power word: fix my service.
I previously worked at an outsourced call center that handled internet support for Cox Communications. I worked there for three years in both tier 1 and tier 2 support positions. Just because you are transferred to someone that answers the phone saying they are a supervisor doesn't mean they are or that they have any more authority than the previous person. I don't know about other call centers but at this one escalating a call to a supervisor only amounted to transferring the call to one of my coworkers on the floor. Sometimes the cubicle right next to me. I took 100s of these highly escalated calls myself during my time there. I wasn't the supervisor of anything. After you've worked there long enough (about six months) to prove you can handle a call you are magically qualified to answer escalated calls saying you are a "floor supervisor."
Threatening to call or write some gov't body doesn't mean anything at this level. The support reps are not there to fix your problems or improve your services. They exist to satisfy your outrage and or upsell you. As long as your anger is satisfied, you will probably keep paying your bill. If your outrage can not be satisfied with the tools that reps have access to such as a form of credit, a new modem, or a service call you are wasting your breath. From what I could tell higher corporate people at cable/telcos are highly insulated to consumer feedback. The only thing that they understand is service cancellations by the 100,000s maybe millions. Massive numbers of customers jumping ship would get there attention. How long have people been cutting the cord in favor of Netflix etc and cable companies are just now beginning to come up with competing offers?
Threatening to call or write some gov't body doesn't mean anything at this level. The support reps are not there to fix your problems or improve your services. They exist to satisfy your outrage and or upsell you. As long as your anger is satisfied, you will probably keep paying your bill. If your outrage can not be satisfied with the tools that reps have access to such as a form of credit, a new modem, or a service call you are wasting your breath. From what I could tell higher corporate people at cable/telcos are highly insulated to consumer feedback. The only thing that they understand is service cancellations by the 100,000s maybe millions. Massive numbers of customers jumping ship would get there attention. How long have people been cutting the cord in favor of Netflix etc and cable companies are just now beginning to come up with competing offers?
I'm not saying that you don't press the issue. I'm say that all the extra's about state attorneys and whatnot aren't needed... just ask for supervisors sternly. I can almost assure you that your average customer service person doesn't care about all the extras. They're following a script 9/10.
I'm usually quite empathetic but the quality of life of a customer service representative is completely irrelevant to me. Most customer service calls occur when something goes wrong, so I'm already spending time dealing with a broken product or service, only to be screwed further by a deliberately discouraging automated menu...
--
(Aside: I think a law should be enacted requiring anyone who sets up an automated customer service line to provide visual data and menu options to smartphones for people who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, have trouble deciphering the words used, or just don't want to sit around for half an hour listening to every option slowly listed trying to figure out how to get to the solve-my-fucking-problem menu. If they can use voice recognition then this shouldn't be that burdensome.)
--
...and then deal with inexperienced or upselling reps.
This goes more than double when the customer is a corporation.
--
(Aside: I think a law should be enacted requiring anyone who sets up an automated customer service line to provide visual data and menu options to smartphones for people who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, have trouble deciphering the words used, or just don't want to sit around for half an hour listening to every option slowly listed trying to figure out how to get to the solve-my-fucking-problem menu. If they can use voice recognition then this shouldn't be that burdensome.)
--
...and then deal with inexperienced or upselling reps.
This goes more than double when the customer is a corporation.
I'm not saying that you should care about the person (that's another discussion entirely). I'm saying they if they don't care (which they probably don't), or don't understand all the extras that you're throwing out (which they probably don't), then you're wasting your time.
Just sternly ask for a supervisor.
Just sternly ask for a supervisor.
I had billing problems with Century-link for 6 months. I filed an FCC complaint and suddenly my bill was fixed! CLink then replied to the complaint saying that they had already fixed it. Funny how that worked out.
I can't wait for the day when ISPs are held accountable for failing to provide the speeds we pay for.
The FCC has been putting pressure on ISPs to increase speeds, but the New York lawsuit alleges that Time Warner juiced the FCC tests to make the results look better than they really were. https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broad...
Recently, the FCC dropped its case defending an inmate calling cap rate. The ISPs now have someone on their side.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/republican-led-f...
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/republican-led-f...
me either, any ideas on how we can do this? I'm currently supposedly guaranteed 100mbs yet my 50mbs fios was leaps and bounds better than one I'm getting now [fios not available in my new area]
Start by requiring more transparency in advertising. Customers deserve to know exactly what they are buying.
[deleted]
Pay for a business account.
Consumer fiber-optic for $40/month just hit my area. The advertised speeds are 1000 Mbps down, 100 Mbps up.
I've been able to sustain 760 Mbps down and 105 Mbps up, it's the most satisfying experience I've had on the internet.
I've been able to sustain 760 Mbps down and 105 Mbps up, it's the most satisfying experience I've had on the internet.
I have AT&T's $90/month fiber at my house. It's gigabit up/down and I always see at least 95% of that when I test it.
When I began reading the article, I was hoping it would detail their deceptive bandwidth management policies. I had the service for about 3 years (recently terminated) and found that speeds would slowly degrade over months. In the end my 200mbps service was giving me about 50mbps. The cable-modem link diagnostics indicated good signal levels and nearly non-existent error rates so obviously it had nothing to do with the cable plant.
Serious question: What would Comcast do that would cause that?
Would they give you a higher proportion of bandwidth when you first subscribe for internet service (and checking speedtest.net), eventually reducing it to give way to other new subscribers? Or do they just not perform sufficient maintenance to keep the high speed?
Would they give you a higher proportion of bandwidth when you first subscribe for internet service (and checking speedtest.net), eventually reducing it to give way to other new subscribers? Or do they just not perform sufficient maintenance to keep the high speed?
I could see this happening if there is an oversubscribed uplink that gets worse as more subscribers are added over time.
Both. Overselling has been common for 20 years and leads to congestion when customers exceed the percentage of their likely bandwidth usage as estimated by the company.
After reading the actual complaint, it sounds like your problem is similar to some of the affected NY customers. Broadband demand is constantly increasing over time. Cable operators have to split service groups to keep providing higher tiers of service. If they do not, then congestion will reduce the speeds received by customers. Check out pgs 37-40 of the NY AG's complaint: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint....
Have had TWC now Spectrum. In two years the price has gone from $35 to $60. There is no cheaper tier, according to them. I use it over wifi so couldn't even use their supposed blazing speed (100mb) anyway.
What can I do? The only competitor, AT&T is not very cost effective either and I dread doing business with them---just paying the bill was an exercise in frustration due to their constantly broken website.
What can I do? The only competitor, AT&T is not very cost effective either and I dread doing business with them---just paying the bill was an exercise in frustration due to their constantly broken website.
You might be able to get a promotional $30/month for 12 months deal, but in general there is no good broadband for under $60/month in the US.
This is common and all the players do this. Almost all. Sat, cable try give you a lower rate and then over time jack it to double what you started with.
It's shady, and slimy. I expect nothing else from telcos and cable co's.
It's shady, and slimy. I expect nothing else from telcos and cable co's.
Ask Spectrum if they offer the "Everyday low price" tier. It's $15/month where I live for 2/1 Mbps down/up but they don't advertise it. This isn't a promotional rate.
Time Warner blatantly tried to rip me off and, then stole my money when I signed up for Earthlink.
First they put charges for channels and shows I never purchased over a 3 month period adding up to $900. I tried to fight it and they wouldn't remove the charges. I cancelled my service and found Earthlink.
I gave Earthlink a little over $100 to hook up a cable modem to my house. 12 hours later it was disconnected and I was told I owed Time Warner $900. They never told me when I signed up that the line would be owned by TWC or that I owed money.
They kept my $100 so, I called AT&T which was the only other option. AT&T lied to me and told me I was getting fiber at 25Mb/sec. When the installer showed up with twisted pair I asked, this is DSL isn't it? He told me yes it was DSL and I'd only get 17Mb/sec. I just tested it on Fast.com and I get 12Mb/sec. Oh well, this is the only choice I have left for working at home at this point.
First they put charges for channels and shows I never purchased over a 3 month period adding up to $900. I tried to fight it and they wouldn't remove the charges. I cancelled my service and found Earthlink.
I gave Earthlink a little over $100 to hook up a cable modem to my house. 12 hours later it was disconnected and I was told I owed Time Warner $900. They never told me when I signed up that the line would be owned by TWC or that I owed money.
They kept my $100 so, I called AT&T which was the only other option. AT&T lied to me and told me I was getting fiber at 25Mb/sec. When the installer showed up with twisted pair I asked, this is DSL isn't it? He told me yes it was DSL and I'd only get 17Mb/sec. I just tested it on Fast.com and I get 12Mb/sec. Oh well, this is the only choice I have left for working at home at this point.
We were recently converted from Time Warner to Spectrum. It was all handled over the phone, and at no point did the customer service rep mention anything about my docsis 2.0 modem not supporting the "up to 60Mbit" they were advertising. Since this was my own modem, I won't fault them too much, but they really should make sure their customers have the correct equipment to take advantage of the service they're buying. Luckily, Spectrum does not seem to be charging for modem lease like TWC did, so I drove up to the local office and picked up a docsis 3.0 modem. My speed jumped from 35Mbit to 75Mbit afterwards (I was previously on 15mbit with TWC for $5 more per month).
Curious: anyone else using twc since spectrum in nyc noticed that the ultimate/extreme speed increases are no longer available for sale/upgrade?
Seems spectrum maxes out at 120mbps, whereas they used to sell 300mbps. (or is that just me?)
Seems spectrum maxes out at 120mbps, whereas they used to sell 300mbps. (or is that just me?)
I live outside Syracuse. After the sale my speed jumped from 50 down to 300 down, with no change in my bill.
[deleted]
This is what this case is about. TWC did this to me. They leased me a Motorola SB6121 that is capable of doing 100Mbps. They then "upgraded" my speed to 200Mbps, but kept the price the same. The 100Mbps tier then became $10/mo. less than the 200Mbps tier. At that point, they were ripping me off for $10/mo.
I confronted customer support with a well-crafted chat message pointing this out, with links to their own specs. They moved me to the 100Mbps tier and credited me $80 or $90 for overcharging me, and didn't fight about it at all. It's like they made damn sure I didn't engage the Streisand Effect.
I confronted customer support with a well-crafted chat message pointing this out, with links to their own specs. They moved me to the 100Mbps tier and credited me $80 or $90 for overcharging me, and didn't fight about it at all. It's like they made damn sure I didn't engage the Streisand Effect.
Anecdotally, I have noticed my upload speeds with Charter Spectrum have been noticeably better over the past month. My uplod went from 100-150 KiB to 500-700KiB
If your modem/router is old it might be holding you back. When I updated ours two years ago I was stunned by the improvement.
whereabouts geographically? that's pretty horrible.
Just saw this. Nashville, TN.
Horrible? I would have say violet disgusting and obscene. I mean that is truly appalling. And they are allowed to call it broadband!
jarcoal(1)
[deleted]
An example set of rules could be:
1. Periodic monitoring of connection speeds is to be expected, and any action requires a minimum of X samples (say, X=10). Measurements may be performed by any party and the measurement method must be fully disclosed. If more than 30% of samples are failing to meet advertised Internet speeds by at least 5%, or any one sample is more than 50% below advertised speed, customer is entitled to a one-day refund of Internet fees. If more than 5 total occurrences in a single calendar month are failing, customer is entitled to a 15-day refund of Internet fees.
2. If the Internet becomes unusable for more than 10 minutes at a time in a single month and the outage can be traced to ISP-given equipment, customer is entitled to a one-day refund of Internet fees. If Internet is unusable multiple times, customer is entitled to a 5-day refund.
3. If company has cause to adjust Internet delivery expectations (such as, too many additional customers to serve original speeds on pipe to same area), existing customers are all immediately released from any contracts and may terminate service immediately with no penalties. In additional, ISP is liable for crediting customer monthly bills for the remainder of service, proportional to the difference in service speed with a 10% penalty for violation of original contract by the ISP.
4. Internet is considered a separate service and may not be bundled with anything else.
And it doesn’t even have to say this much to be a huge improvement. The point is that companies have been getting away with lousy services FOR YEARS and appear to be largely unpunished, while meanwhile the number of customers overpaying and not receiving stable and promised service numbers in the millions.