
Schneiderman: Spectrum-Time Warner defrauded customers on internet service - JumpCrisscross
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/271821/schneiderman-spectrum-time-warner-defrauded-deceived-customers-on-internet-service/
======
makecheck
It’s ridiculous how simple and fair the rules for this _could_ be, if only
they’d been implemented in law to cover certain scenarios that ensure honesty.

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.

~~~
jaredklewis
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).

~~~
nosuchthing
Charging by the byte would disincentive users from exploring the Internet.

That effectively kills the Internet as we know it.

~~~
jaredklewis
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.

~~~
nosuchthing
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.

------
X86BSD
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.

~~~
porpoisemonkey
> 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.

~~~
X86BSD
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.

~~~
notpeter
> 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...](https://www.timewarnercable.com/en/support/faqs/faqs-account-and-
billing/billing/why-does-twc-bill-one-month-in.html)

~~~
porpoisemonkey
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](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](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-...](http://help.hbonow.com/app/answers/detailHBO/a_id/139/~/how-
do-i-cancel-my-hbo-now-subscription%3F#billing-cycle)

------
rm_-rf_slash
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.

~~~
John23832
I think that works if the customer service person understands that... or even
cares.

Many customer service workers are underpaid/overworked and DGAF.

~~~
Karunamon
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.

~~~
kelyjames
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?

------
breul99
I can't wait for the day when ISPs are held accountable for failing to provide
the speeds we pay for.

~~~
fosco
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]

~~~
curt15
Start by requiring more transparency in advertising. Customers deserve to know
exactly what they are buying.

------
iaw
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.

~~~
space_ghost
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.

------
anonymous_iam
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.

~~~
trendia
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?

~~~
guelo
I could see this happening if there is an oversubscribed uplink that gets
worse as more subscribers are added over time.

------
mixmastamyk
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.

~~~
wmf
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.

~~~
X86BSD
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.

------
dsmithatx
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.

------
heywire
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).

------
imajes
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?)

~~~
JshWright
I live outside Syracuse. After the sale my speed jumped from 50 down to 300
down, with no change in my bill.

------
CodeWriter23
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.

------
justinhensley
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

~~~
imajes
whereabouts geographically? that's pretty horrible.

~~~
justinhensley
Just saw this. Nashville, TN.

