Overbilled Customer Sues Time Warner Cable For False Advertising

An anonymous reader writes According to a lawsuit filed Friday in a New York court, when Jeremy Zielinski signed up for Time Warner Internet service after seeing an ad that it was $34.99 a month, he didn't expect his first bill to be more than $94. He didn't expect he'd have to fight for weeks to resolve it. And he didn't expect that, Time Warner's next step would be to sell him faster speeds, not bother to tell him his modem couldn't handle them, send him a bill anyway, then demand that he drive to the local office at his own expense to get a compatible modem. So he's taking the cable giant to court, accusing it of false advertising and deceptive business practices. While a lone individual fighting in court against the second largest cable company in the world certainly doesn't have the odds in his favor, this could get interesting. According to the complaint, he opted out of TWC's binding arbitration clause a few days after he opened his account, so he might have a shot of keeping this issue in real court. Stay tuned for more.

Comments

I hear the sound of big business

[Anonymous Coward]

and it sounds like a heard of lawyers heading his way...

Re:I hear the sound of big business

[fnj]

and it sounds like a heard of lawyers heading his way...

I herd it was a hole heard full of wholes.

Re:I hear the sound of big business

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't make a class action out of it unless you are willing to settle for a coupon worth less than your cost to cash it in.

Re:I hear the sound of big business

[omnichad]

The person who initiates a class action usually gets a pretty good payout, too.

Re:I hear the sound of big business

[Anonymous Coward]

Fool of wholes.

Re: I hear the sound of big business

[Anonymous Coward]

Full of whores

Good for him!

[XxtraLarGe]

I don't know why big companies just can't do what they say they're going to do. I just bought an iPhone 6 Plus from AT&T, and they promised a $200 buyback for the iPhone 4 if the purchase was made by Sept. 30. After they sent me the phone, they sent me a follow-up e-mail with a code for the iPhone 4, but the buyback value was only $100 with that code. So I had to call customer service, and they told me I had to go to the nearest AT&T store to get it straightened out. The nearest store is 30 miles from my house. Thankfully it's between my work & home IF I take an alternate, longer route. The guy at the store knew exactly what I was talking about when I got there and they were able to get me squared away without too much problem. I'm guessing they wanted to see how many people would just shrug and take a $100 hit.

Re:Good for him!

[XxtraLarGe]

That, and they want people in the stores to get sold protection plans and overpriced accessories.

Could be the case. The guy asked me if I wanted to get accessories with it, and I told him to just put it on my account. AT&T is the last place I'd buy accessories from, I noticed they still had cases for the iPhone 4 for $50 on the rack!

Re:Good for him!

[Jason Levine]

I don't know why big companies just can't do what they say they're going to do.

Companies are out to make themselves as much money as they can. To do this, they will often engage in sleazy practices. The only things that keep them in check are 1) fear of losing customers to the competition, 2) government regulation, and 3) lawsuits. Time Warner Cable isn't worried about #1 because in most places they operate they are the only choice (or one of two choices) for wired broadband Internet access. Government regulation worries them (see the Title II debate) but they spend a lot of money lobbying the government to reduce how much they need to worry. As far as lawsuits go... Imagine a giant scale. Put a consumer on one side of the scale. Now put the legal resources of Time Warner Cable on the other side. Which side will weigh more? Even if the consumer has a valid legal gripe, Time Warner Cable's lawyers can tie it up in court enough to either bankrupt the consumer or to threaten to do so enough so as to force the consumer into a settlement (which doesn't set a precedent).

In short, big companies like Time Warner Cable don't have anyone to fear and thus they feel free to do whatever they want to do.

Re:Good for him!

[McKing]

Perfect example of a Confusopoly. Make it just annoying enough so that the bulk of the people will just say "screw it" and the company makes a lot more money (or loses way less money than they would have).

Reminds me of the hoops that you used to have to go through to get rebates on electronics back in the 90's. It should have been simple: "fill out this form, cut the UPC code off of the box (making it impossible to return), wait 4-6 weeks, deposit the check". Unfortunately, a large percentage of the time there would be no check after 6 weeks, and the procedure to actually make the claim was annoying enough that most people said "screw it" and never pursued the issue, even if they remembered that they ever sent the rebate form in 2 months ago at all.

Re:Good for him!

[Njorthbiatr]

Because marketing.

Re:Good for him!

[StikyPad]

My co-worker had the exact same issue. I'll go ahead and attribute it to incompetence rather than malice, but that doesn't make it much better. The harm is the same.

Re:Good for him!

[omnichad]

I always add an entry to my calendar at the same time I mail off a rebate. If it says 4-6 weeks, the calendar entry is for 8 weeks out. I put the rebate confirmation number (if online) and all the details on the event entry.

Re:Good for him!

[tibit]

It's real easy. It's not a big company that can't do it, because companies aren't living things and can't do anything, they are just ideas. It's their employees who don't care, but more often, simply aren't empowered to do the right thing. The marketing department can't will things to happen just so. If the people who have an influence on this process can't or won't make it happen, it doesn't happen. It's as simple as that. Corporate HR has lost the human touch long time ago.

Re: Good for him!

[sneakyimp]

Well said! I believe it is our sacred duty to support this noble David against the evil Goliath or we can all suffer forever.

Re:Good for him!

[Pubstar]

The for you not being able to return it's by design. It's so you can't buy something, get the rebate and return it.

Re:Good for him!

[tompaulco]

I'll go ahead and attribute it to incompetence rather than malice,

If the bottom line of the company on average benefits from the incompetence then I attribute it to malice.

Re:Good for him!

[red crab]

Mere incompetence occasionally should also imply an accidental underbilling. But that never happens. I'd call it a common business practice; the goal is make more out of customer's negligence and reluctance. I recall how I was regularly fleeced by HSBC Bank, with whom I used to hold a savings account. They once "upgraded" my account to a "Turbo Account" (of course without my consent) and started deducting a considerable monthly penalty for not keeping the minimum balance required for a turbo account. I noticed that a couple of months later in my statement and demanded a downgrade and refund of penalty charges. They responded by downgrading the account but the money was never refunded. Also later, they kept revising the minimum balance once in every months and intimated this well after a penalty was deducted.

I could and should have moved to court; but I simply didn't have the time and resources for that; and they (the companies) know that very well.

Re:Good for him!

[red crab]

Mere incompetence occasionally should also imply an accidental underbilling. But that never happens. I'd call it a common business practice; the goal is make more out of customer's negligence and reluctance. I recall how I was regularly fleeced by HSBC Bank, with whom I used to hold a savings account. They once "upgraded" my account to a "Turbo Account" (of course without my consent) and started deducting a considerable monthly penalty for not keeping the minimum balance required for a turbo account. I noticed that a couple of months later in my statement and demanded a downgrade and refund of penalty charges. They responded by downgrading the account but the money was never refunded. Also later, they kept revising the minimum balance once in every months and intimated this well after a penalty was deducted. I could and should have moved to court; but I simply didn't have the time and resources for that; and they (the companies) know that very well.

Re:Good for him!

[snsh]

I doubt anyone working at AT&T actually had a sinister plan to advertise a $200 promo and offer only $100.

At these big companies it's more likely due to corporate disorganization, with one department not knowing what the other department is doing. The promotions are developed by marketing geniuses, who tell the IT people to put them into the computer, then at point-of-sale they're supposed to be able to locate the promotion in the computer. That fails, so then you call customer-service where the people have even less clue what's going on so they refer you to go back the store where someone more knowledgeable can help you out.

It's also a problem of over-marketing as much as disorganization. Twenty years ago, you could open up a 1994 phone book and on the 3rd page would be a list of local telephone plans and prices. There were no time-limited promotions and codes to complicate things. Instead, all customers paid the same rates. Long distance was a totally different matter. People were switching carriers monthly hopping from one promotion to another. But local telephone had simple pricing. Today broadband needs to be more like that.

Re:Good for him!

[Jason Levine]

Now wishing Slashdot had an Edit button so I could block that Blockquote tag.

TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[GungaDan]

I noticed a $10 line item on a recent TWC bill for "Home WIFI." I went through the chat option on their website to inquire what this was, and how TWC might think it is provisioning wifi in my home despite my owning my own cable modem and WAP. They told me that they could remove the line item, but that wifi would no longer work in my home. Laughable nonsense. I called their bluff and my bill dropped $10. I wish I had saved a transcript of that chat. They prey on people who don't know any better.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[SternisheFan]

That's theft, plain and simple.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[sycodon]

It's things like this that make someone who is conservative and pretty much Pro-Business agree with Obama that these people need to be declared Public Utilities and suffer all the usual regulations.

Right now, Cable companies are gaming the system. They claim to be competitive businesses and that they should not be regulated like a utility, yet they enjoy the protections from competition typically enjoyed by Utilities.

  My neighborhood has Time Warner and AT&T DSL. AT&T was only able to provide internet because they had the phone lines. As it stands now Verizon, Google, or anyone else who wants to provide broadband, can't because of the franchise agreements. Time Warner can fuck you in the ass and all you can do is beg for lube because no other company is going to think, "hey, we can do a better job at a lower price" and then provide service because the Government (local) won't allow it.

So Two Options...Declare all exclusivity/franchise agreements null and void and allow anyone with the capital to lay/string lines and provide service, or declare these fuckers utilities and MANDATE levels of service or tell them to GTFO and let someone else provide it.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[schlachter]

that's actually fraud. some law firm should pick up on that and sue. probably millions in these charges across their customer base.

Micro Center recently told my mom when she bought a new computer that her existing 3 yr anti-virus service that she paid some stupid amount for won't transfer to her new computer (same OS) and that she needed to buy a new 3 yr license. Of course it installed and activated in a few minutes on her new computer later that day. So fraudulent.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[Jason Levine]

It's things like this that make someone who is conservative and pretty much Pro-Business agree with Obama that these people need to be declared Public Utilities and suffer all the usual regulations.

I agree. The big ISPs are claiming that they can police themselves and don't need government regulation. Meanwhile, they are abusing their monopoly/duopoly positions to grab as much money as they can from consumers. About the only entity large enough to scare them back into some semblance of sanity *IS* the government. It's not an ideal solution, but the ISPs only have themselves to blame for being greedy and sleazy.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[L. J. Beauregard]

They say they *can* police themselves. They don't say they *will*.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[JeffOwl]

How about a compromise? Make the last mile providers utilities and require them to allow other ISPs to sell on their infrastructure. Since the infrastructure in many areas was a government granted monopoly when it was put in, regulate the rates that they can charge ISPs, but let the ISPs compete on prices, speeds and features. I remember when DSL was this way and I thought it worked pretty well.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[Mr D from 63]

I'd prefer they accomplish the necessary regulation with declaring them a utility, but maybe in the end that's what it will take. Once they do it, there is no turning back. Other agencies, like the FTC, can implement consumer protections as needed. Personally, I'd prefer they outlaw introductory rates with post intro rate commitments unless they show the average cost over the term and the customer clearly agrees to it.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[Mr D from 63]

^correction, meant to say "I'd prefer they accomplish the necessary regulation WITHOUT declaring them a utility"

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[jeffmeden]

So Two Options...Declare all exclusivity/franchise agreements null and void and allow anyone with the capital to lay/string lines and provide service, or declare these fuckers utilities and MANDATE levels of service or tell them to GTFO and let someone else provide it.

Asymmetry of information really plays a hard role in this. TWC no doubt entered into an agreement with the muni that controls the utility right of way, such that there was a quid pro quo (they install coax and boxes and pay a franchise fee and they get a 10 year exclusivity agreement, or similar) and of course the local lawmakers ate it up because people moving into an area aren't going to look into local laws about media service agreements, they are just going to know the place is cable-ready. When cable TV started to grow exponentially, it was a given that only one company in any given area would have the incentive to hang/bury the lines because two in the market would make it unprofitable for both. We are at the point now where rising demand and lower costs of technology can support two or more providers in most urban and suburban areas, but why change the agreement precedent now? Its not like normal people have a clue how any of this works. The only hope is that second-tier providers (like Wide Open West) will push their way into your market looking for profit, and force coaxial competition.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[Russ1642]

One way that we can combat fraud like this is to simply record phone calls, but those abilities are hobbled on all current phones unless you root them.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[tysonedwards]

This is actually a very reasonable idea, considering that in many jurisdictions the last mile deployments have been subsidized via government grants or guaranteed loans and bonds. The justification for these companies to apply for such money is that without the support of government, it would not be economically practical to provide service to various localities. By taking all last-mile deployments out of government hands, many of which simply have been ignored outside of big cities anyways, then individual cities could utilize funds from property taxes to provide the actual termination to each residence and business. Then, there can be the immediate possibility of competition of middle mile providers within these localities for those customers without such significant expense to them, effectively lowering costs for their customers.

Although on the flip side, we know full well that costs won't go down, even as responsibilities are split... It'll just be that everyone realizes "Oh, this is the biggest number that the vast majority of people are willing to pay today, so that is what we charge!" to which the market will naturally settle on a tacit understanding of multilateral screwing despite the new appearance of choice.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[smooth wombat]

The big ISPs are claiming that they can police themselves and don't need government regulation.

That's the same excuse the banks and Wall Street firms were using in 2005-2008 until their incompetence caught up with them at which point they immediately said, "The government has to do something" (to protect us were the unsaid words). It ended up costing we taxpayers over $3 trillion to prop up these failing businesses, as well as the ongoing QE shenanigans, and to this day not a single firm has ever said thank you for pulling their asses out of the fire at the last possible second.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[gstoddart]

I think technically it's fraud, isn't it?

They didn't steal from you, they charged you for something they weren't giving you.

Of course, getting that sorted out is damned near impossible, and even if you did get them in court they could plead incompetence.

And, of course, their 'license' for their service probably says that you agree to this.

It really is time to take some of the power out of the hands of the corporations here.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a compromise? Make the last mile providers utilities and require them to allow other ISPs to sell on their infrastructure. Since the infrastructure in many areas was a government granted monopoly when it was put in, regulate the rates that they can charge ISPs, but let the ISPs compete on prices, speeds and features. I remember when DSL was this way and I thought it worked pretty well.

And then you'll get the situation we have in Canada (at least in Ontario) where TPIP's (Third Party Internet Providers) clients are constantly dealing with utter nonsense because the larger incumbents (Rogers/Bell) own and do the service on the last mile.

Sometimes, the Internet goes down. For cable, this is oftentimes due to a cable audit. Records show no account with the incumbent? Snip! (Even if there's a TPIP [red, and bloody obvious] tag on your connection). Here's what happens: TPIP makes a ticket which gets sent to Rogers; Rogers makes client wait 4-6 days typically to get one of their technicians to repair, no verification is done as to the job being done successfully. If all ISN'T well, another ticket, another 4 days. Meanwhile, Rogers 'helpfully' sends you an advertisement about timely save-day service if you switch to their service. And yes, there are several lawsuits over this nonsense, but the regulators are staffed by former Bell/Rogers employees, and without regulation/laws saying this practice is garbage, the incumbents laugh all the way to the bank.

Lately, there's been reports of people just slicing their cable (taking down Television and internet) outside to force Rogers to show up same day and fix everything (assuming you have TV service with them). The techs check to make sure all is good before taking off if you go this route. "Oops. Lawnmower."

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[CastrTroy]

This is basically what happened in Canada. Here's my only problem. Since they are in charge of the last mile, when something goes wrong with the lines, they prioritize based on who is their customer. The only way the other ISPs can communicate with them is via email, and they can't really do too much if the big boys are being slow about fixing the problem. This is why the lines should be taken back, and managed by an impartial third party, who's only job it is to manage the lines, and isn't involved in selling internet service.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[xaxa]

How about a compromise? Make the last mile providers utilities and require them to allow other ISPs to sell on their infrastructure. Since the infrastructure in many areas was a government granted monopoly when it was put in, regulate the rates that they can charge ISPs, but let the ISPs compete on prices, speeds and features. I remember when DSL was this way and I thought it worked pretty well.

And then you'll get the situation we have in Canada [which is bad]

Or you might get the situation in the UK, where I can choose from a wide range of providers at a wide range of prices and service levels. A few lay their own fibre and connections, most of the better ones lay fibre to the phone exchanges and have some routing equipment inside, the cheap ones lease everything from BT and save money (compared to BT) with customer service and usage limits (but plenty for my grandma, who pays £2.50/month or so for a few GB to check her email and chat on Skype).

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[cyberchondriac]

I'm in full agreement, but I'm sure it's not just conservatives blocking that move. Comcast donates heavily to the left.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[Idbar]

Time Warner can fuck you in the ass and all you can do is beg for lube

Hey, look at the bright side there's still the TW option. Comcast is planning to buy TW, and there won't be any begging for lube.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[omnichad]

Google Voice: press 4. Of course you have to find a way to make them call you...

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[puzzled_decoy]

It's theft, as he never agreed to have it taken. http://www.differencebetween.n...

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[CronoCloud]

They didn't steal from you, they charged you for something they weren't giving you.

They probably thought they WERE giving it to him since many cable modems these days also serve as wi-fi routers. The local cable company installs a wi-fi capable router by default with new installs these days, and they charge for that feature. Don't want it? They give you a standard non-gateway cable modem, and don't charge the fee.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[puzzled_decoy]

Here is a much better explanation of the differences: http://koehlerlaw.net/assault-...

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[CronoCloud]

They told me that they could remove the line item, but that wifi would no longer work in my home. Laughable nonsense. I called their bluff and my bill dropped $10.

They weren't bluffing and it's not actually laughable nonsense. Many cable companies supply cable modems that ARE wi-fi routers as well as being a cable modem. The local cable company supplies them by default now. They probably assumed you had that kind of equipment and didn't have a note in your file stating you supplied your own equipment.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[CronoCloud]

but those abilities are hobbled on all current phones unless you root them.

Not everyone has gone cell phone only, one can record calls on POTS phones quite easily.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[Obfuscant]

How about a compromise? Make the last mile providers utilities and require them to allow other ISPs to sell on their infrastructure.

This situation is so analogous to the long distance deregulation from decades ago that we'd be silly not to learn from it.

I remember when "Ma Bell" owned the phone system. They owned the wire into your house and the phones attached to it. They did the long distance. If it broke, you called the repair number and someone fixed it.

The only time I ever had a problem getting repair to do something back then was when I had to call the repair number in another state because the mechanical first selector in the local CO had stuck and I was only able to call numbers in a city across the state line that was in our "extended local calling area". Any number that started with '2' was Elkhart, IN, and that's what my line was frozen to. The op who answered the Elkhart repair number had a hard time understanding what I meant when I told him to have someone go to my local CO and smack the step-by-step that was frozen.

Then the great divestiture. The local telco became the "last mile" for the long distance providers. You now own the wire from the demarc into the house. You own the phones attached to it. When it breaks ...

You call the local repair number. They ask you if you've tested all your phones, even if the "break" is an inability to make long distance calls but local works fine. They say they'll send someone out, but threaten you with a big fee if they determine the problem is in your equipment.

Once the local provider determines you're calling about an LD issue, they claim it is the LD provider's problem and you need to call them.

You call the LD provider and they tell you it is a local telco issue, call them.

Yes, there were issues when Ma Bell owned it all, but getting good response to service calls was not one of them. I'd really rather not have to live through all of that again with local broadband internet. 'Hey Comcast, it's broke, fix it" is much easier than having to call two different companies eight times each to get one of them to accept responsibility and do something.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[stdarg]

My phone (Nexus 5) isn't rooted and I can record calls. Different apps work on different phones apparently. I'm using "Call Recorder" right now.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[complete loony]

In Australia Telstra maintain the copper line, if there's a problem you log the fault and they fix it within 2 days or they have to pay you. Unless they file a claim for a natural disaster, which can give them an extra couple days to fix it.

At the other end of the copper, your wire may be patched directly into your ISP's equipment. Though in practice I think there are only 2 or 3 companies running the DSLAM's. Smaller ISP's then lease them per line.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[phoenix_rizzen]

Exactly. You need to separate infrastructure (installation and maintenance thereof) from content (that goes across said infrastructure).

There's only 1 set of power lines going into each building, yet there are multiple providers/sources of electrons in the grid. Most power utilities are split into generation and delivery businesses. Customers can even choose where their payments go (to "normal" power generation, "green" power generation, etc).

There's only 1 set of gas lines going into each building, yet there are multiple providers/sources of natural gas in the grid. Most gas companies are split into generation and delivery businesses. Up here in BC, Canada, we have multiple gas suppliers to choose from, depending on whether we want a fluctuating rate or a locked-in rate. All goes over the same gas line infrastructure.

Back in the day, there was only 1 set of phone lines into each building, but you could get phone services from multiple local or long-distance carriers. You could even get Internet service through multiple dial-up ISPs or ADSL ISPs. Separate businesses from infrastructure and content.

Some cities even had 1 set of cable lines going into a building, but you could get TV service from multiple cable companies.

We need to separate IP infrastructure (1 set of fibre cables into each building) from IP services (multiple ISPs, IPTV, IP-whatever companies).

It's absolutely rediculously redundant and wasteful to have every ISP running their own lines into each building (cable, ADSL, fibre ISP1, fibre ISP2, etc). And it's anti-competitive as all get out to have a content company managing Internet infrastructure.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[Obfuscant]

There's only 1 set of power lines going into each building, yet there are multiple providers/sources of electrons in the grid.

The difference being that it is impossible to differentiate between the electrons you take off the wire, while it is critical that you get the same packets your ISP is putting on the wire for you and not just any packet that happens to be coming by.

That means that when an energy provider is "broken" and not putting electrons onto the distribution grid, it is a problem that that provider and the owner of the distribution grid both are very interested in solving (your payment through the distributor goes to the provider and the provider isn't). If your ISP is broken and not putting the right packets onto the distribution medium for you, the distributor doesn't care and probably doesn't know, YOU care and YOU have to deal with the ISP -- who would then blame the distributor who will blame the ISP ...

In other words, alternate energy provides can break and you'd never know it but those who have to fix it will. If your ISP breaks, YOU'll know it, but probably nobody else will.

Back in the day, there was only 1 set of phone lines into each building, but you could get phone services from multiple local or long-distance carriers.

No, "back in the day", you got to pick one local phone service and they were tied to one LD. Divestiture change the latter because the LD services were put onto the one local telco's wires to the subs at the CO or above and the LD service didn't need physical access to the copper to your house. In fact, which LD you used became an entirely switching-based question, and you could use access codes to pick a different LD provider every time you called someone. A different local provider would need that physical access, and that didn't happen, because the switching system was hardwired to your copper pair. Your phone talked to the local telco switch and you couldn't say "connect my pair to someone else."

We need to separate IP infrastructure (1 set of fibre cables into each building) from IP services (multiple ISPs, IPTV, IP-whatever companies).

And if you think getting something fixed is difficult now, just wait until there are three or four different companies involved in your one broadband connection. It's hard enough now to really determine where a packet loss problem is happening, just think what it would be like to determine if Comcast (the wire) was dropping packets or is it Frank's Hometown ISP and Dry Cleaner that's messing up.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[stinerman]

There's your problem. Rogers/Bell shouldn't be ISPs. They should only be concerned with the wires.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[stinerman]

Declare all exclusivity/franchise agreements null and void

Exclusive franchise agreements haven't been allowed since 1992.

The Communications Act requires that no new cable operator may provide service without a franchise and establishes several policies relating to franchising requirements and franchise fees. The Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to grant one or more franchises within their jurisdiction. However, a local franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise, and may not unreasonably withhold its consent for new service.

Its a natural monopoly. The infrastructure needs to be separate from the services.

I'm lucky. I live in an area where I have about 4 choices for TV/Internet/etc. That's still not enough.

Re:TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieves

[GungaDan]

It was laughable nonsense because I haven't leased a modem from them for some time now, and back when I did that modem did not have any wireless features. Even if I was currently leasing a wifi-capable modem from them, why should there be a separate line item for "home wifi" in addition to the modem lease? They are not providing any extra service - if they want to charge more for leasing the wifi-capable modems, they should say so, not tack on a deceptive extra "service" charge. Charging a fee for a "service" that they are not providing is sleazy any way you look at it.

Good luck!

[MagickalMyst]

I sincerely hope he wins!

Big corporations constantly take advantage of the 'little guy' and there is little incentive for them to stop.

For example, if a company makes an extra $1 million a year by engaging in sleazy (illegal/immoral) business practice, and pays $100,000 in fines/restitution, then the activity - from a business perspective - is considered 'good business' because the company profited $900,000.

The $100,000 is seen as a sort of 'criminal tax' or cost of doing business.

CEO's of large corporations are _expected_ to make these sort of decisions if they want to keep their job. It's all about paying shareholders; not providing quality products or services to the customers.

The only way the company really gets hurt is if there is a successful lawsuit or a plethora of bad publicity. Of course, many companies have slush funds put aside to take care of these sort of 'problems'.

Corporations get away with way too much!

For once it would be nice to see David beat Goliath.

Like I said, I hope he wins!

Re:Good luck!

[robbyb20]

I have a feeling this will be settled out of court. Don't want to set any precedence or anything...

Re:Good luck!

[sjames]

That is exactly because our government keeps deciding to let the market solve it even though our so-called markets don't have enough independent sellers for competition to have any effect. Each 'competitor' can easily match the very few others sleaze for sleaze so nobody goes out of business.

Re:Good luck!

[XxtraLarGe]

That is exactly because our government keeps deciding to let the market solve it even though our so-called markets don't have enough independent sellers for competition to have any effect. Each 'competitor' can easily match the very few others sleaze for sleaze so nobody goes out of business.

Fraud isn't a part of a free market, and is a legitimate time for using courts to settle the dispute.

Re:Good luck!

[sjames]

No it isn't, but in a world of imperfect enforcement, *IF* there are enough legitimate competitors, the market may limit the damage. Alas, we have neither effective enforcement nor adequate markets.

Re: Good luck!

[sneakyimp]

Can we reliably identify him and crowdfund him? He MUST win.

It's too bad, really

[rmdingler]

Given the general sentiment toward cable providers and their malevolent indifference to improve service, I can reasonably see loading a jury with folks predisposed to angst with their own service.

It's too bad this plaintiff will have a difficult time outlasting the cable giant's efforts at playing lawsuit.

Re:It's too bad, really

[Enry]

It'll get paid sometime between the hours of 2PM and never.

Re:It's too bad, really

[Tyr07]

It's really odd honestly, in a place of justice that money controls the outcome still.

I don't know what to suggest? Maybe a legal system where lawyers are funded purely by taxes and still only receive payment for the services rendered?

Re:It's too bad, really

[Anonymous Coward]

How about both sides pay the same? The bigger party is not allowed to spend more than the smaller party, or if they choose to they have to fund the smaller party to the same extent. If they use an in-house lawyer, they have to fund legal expenses for the other side to hire a lawyer at the going rate.

That way, the small guy could choose to represent himself and Big Corp would have an entirely free choice - fund his team, or send a representative with no formal legal training.

Re:It's too bad, really

[_anomaly_]

I think you're onto something here.

How many times do you think there has been a legitimate lawsuit that should be filed and tried but never saw the light of day or was seen to the end because the plaintiff didn't have the resources to keep it funded to the point they had their day in court?
I suspect it's a lot.

Make all lawyers like public defenders... paid for through taxes, with bonus incentives for winning cases or something. So, when a lawsuit is filed, both the plaintiff and the defendant get assigned a lawyer, or lawyers.

But, IANAL and my knowledge of the justice system and how lawsuits work is very limited, to be honest.

Re:It's too bad, really

[CrimsonAvenger]

Maybe a legal system where lawyers are funded purely by taxes and still only receive payment for the services rendered?

The coffers of people doing frivolous lawsuits are finite. The amount a lawyer can get doing frivolous lawsuits at government expense are NOT.

In other words, do we really want endless frivolous lawsuits being filed at our expense?

Re:It's too bad, really

[Tyr07]

Well, I would think laws would hopefully be adjusted to stay on Justice but make it so delay tactics are not viable.

If someone is delaying on the need to gather more evidence, maybe limit it, but allow people to submit appeals when more evidence is available easier?

Also shouldn't justice not be about what takes up peoples time but justice?

Re:It's too bad, really

[Tyr07]

Maybe two separate kinds of courts? One to basically screen this out?

I couldn't say for all cases that they're important but maybe a prescreening to determine if the results of the defendant are significantly impacting someones life with their actions before it's permitted to go to court? You have your small counts for amounts under 5000$, but funded with lawyers the same, and then have your criminal and significant damages courts which deal with people significantly impacted by what someone has done, for individuals.

Then maybe one last separate court which rules over corporate entities, so all the patent crap between giants can be fought there.

Piracy Precident

[wisnoskij]

If you can get fined millions of dollars for stealing a 5 cent mp3, then certainly overcharging someone in the range of ~$100 is bound to bring in Billions of dollars in damages.

Re:Piracy Precident

[XxtraLarGe]

If you can get fined millions of dollars for stealing a 5 cent mp3, then certainly overcharging someone in the range of ~$100 is bound to bring in Billions of dollars in damages.

When big corporations do it, it's "different".

Re:Piracy Precident

[Thanshin]

I can't find Precident in the Wiktionary. Is he the guy that governed the country before the current one?

How is he related to 5 cent, the famous rapper you mention?

Re:Piracy Precident

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.
They're people.
We aren't.

Re:Piracy Precident

[Quirkz]

No, you're talking apples and oranges here. The $100 is for services, which aren't really very valuable. The 5 cents was for *copyright infringement* which we all know is worse than murder. I'm surprised they haven't bumped that up to the death penalty yet, to make the punishment fit the crime.

Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[schlachter]

Comcast offered a $50 cash card if we signed up for internet service with them. We signed up in May, and the card never came. We called and they denied that they ever offered the card. A few more calls later, they agreed that they offered it and said they would send it. It never came. Last month, five months, a final call was made and the card arrived.

Clearly they have a strategy of screwing customers, either through intentional scripting or extreme negligence.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[Anonymous Coward]

Never attribute to malice what could be explained by stupidity. Eg they could unintentionally be profitting millions and they have no clue why because they never audit the department managing the cash card offers.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[jeffmeden]

Comcast offered a $50 cash card if we signed up for internet service with them. We signed up in May, and the card never came. We called and they denied that they ever offered the card. A few more calls later, they agreed that they offered it and said they would send it. It never came. Last month, five months, a final call was made and the card arrived.

Clearly they have a strategy of screwing customers, either through intentional scripting or extreme negligence.

The *only* reason to offer some sort of price promotion later instead of just giving you the discount up front and making you sign a contract (even for three months of service) is so that they can roll the dice on customers signing up after being enticed by the promotion, and then not claiming the promotion. Rebates work the same way. Why is it that we can pass a thousand consumer protection laws about credit card interest rates and privacy disclosures, but can't just ban the blatant rip-off of rebate promotions?

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[JeffOwl]

Never attribute to malice what could be explained by stupidity. Eg they could unintentionally be profitting millions and they have no clue why because they never audit the department managing the cash card offers.

They know not to ask questions to which they do not want to know the answers.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[njnnja]

Although it could be a combination of both malice and stupidity. Higher ups could maliciously staff up the card offer department with the most incompetent, logistically-challenged employees (who for whatever reason they can't/won't let go - yet) figuring that if the cards don't all get sent out it's no big deal.

So there are 2 reasons why you don't get the gift card you were promised - you didn't get the card because the guy in charge of distributing them only has a job because his brother in law is one of Comcast's best corporate salesmen, and couldn't query a customer database if his life depended on it, but you also didn't get the card because some VP figured that if the guy in charge of sending them out is an idiot then they might save a few bucks because he will never figure out who should get them, and will probably never get around to actually sending them out even when he does.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[fulldecent]

Download the record everything app from the Google App store and keep every call when you dial Comcast. Then post all calls onto sound cloud

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[aardvarkjoe]

can't just ban the blatant rip-off of rebate promotions?

If the company honors the rebate as promised, and provides the terms of the rebate up front, then it's not a rip-off. If they don't, well, then that's fraud -- there are already laws against it, although I wouldn't mind seeing more enforcement of those laws.

Why should the government prevent competent adults from entering into an agreement that includes a rebate? Sure, the companies are hoping that many will not claim it, but that's the customer's choice.

I don't like the hassle of rebates myself (when I compare prices, I don't take rebates into consideration), but I don't need the government making that decision for me.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[Twanfox]

It's more about buying a $100 product at a store that has a $30 rebate, and forgetting or not filing the paperwork to get the money back, instead of, you know, just offering it as a direct rebate or coupon to the seller and allowing the customer to buy it at $70 out of pocket. I'm sure the claim rate of rebates is not 100%, and it probably isn't over 50% if I had to guess.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[Solandri]

The *only* reason to offer some sort of price promotion later instead of just giving you the discount up front and making you sign a contract (even for three months of service) is so that they can roll the dice on customers signing up after being enticed by the promotion, and then not claiming the promotion. Rebates work the same way. Why is it that we can pass a thousand consumer protection laws about credit card interest rates and privacy disclosures, but can't just ban the blatant rip-off of rebate promotions?.

Actually, rebates serve two different purposes. It allows the manufacturer to pass along a price cut to the final buyer without affecting its contract pricing with distributors and retailers. And it allows manufacturers to make price cuts (sometimes rather large ones) without having all of the product bought up by middlemen - e.g. eBay resellers who quickly snap up all of the available inventory at the lower price and list it on eBay at close to the original price (rebates are typically limited to a certain number per household address).

The rebate companies hired by manufacturers to run the rebate programs work as you say. They get paid a lump sum by the manufacturer, and get to keep anything left over after paying out the rebates. So they have an incentive to stall, lose, and deny your rebates. But the reason rebates exist are legitimate and have nothing to do with ripping off consumers. In fact the second reason actually helps consumers (by cutting out flippers who drive up the price).

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[tompaulco]

When I see a discount offered as a rebate, I generally discount it by about 90%. If I see a product offered for $300 with no rebate at one store and $275 after a $50 rebate at another store, I will pay the $300. It is not worth the effort to deal with the rebate process, wait for the rebate to come, deal with the fact that it is probably a debit card or a store use only card, probably has decreasing balance if not used, charges for checking balance, no actual cash value, etc.

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[RenderSeven]

Obviously the Republitards are going to side with big cable

Must you make this partisan? Comcast bought *everybody* off. http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should the government prevent competent adults from entering into an agreement that includes a rebate? Sure, the companies are hoping that many will not claim it, but that's the customer's choice.

Rebates are a form of deceptive advertising, they are intentionally confusing the actual price of the product (what you pay at the store) with a much lower advertised price.

Because when you are comparing prices the rebate price will always show up at the top. Its a form of deceptive advertising where the number in big letters isn't what you pay when you get to the store.

The law I would pass would require any advertised product that has a mail in rebate to list the "what you pay" price above and with a larger font size than the rebate price.

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[sumdumass]

I was with you until you spewed crap about republicans. Obviously you do not know what you are talking about because the law has been on the books and remains on the books despite republicans having control of congress and the presidency in the recent past.

Try keeping politics out of places it doesn't belong. Especially if you checked, you would know 2/3 or better time warner political contributiones go to democrats. If any politicisn would actually be against the consumer here, it is more likely to be them

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[schlachter]

exactly...and the allowance of the continued stupidity becomes passive malice. Don't do harm through action or inaction. Even our robots can handle that.

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[cyberchondriac]

Comcast is deep in bed with the Democrats, not the Republicans. GE is the same. Educate yourself a little before spewing your kneejerk rhetoric. They donate heavily to the left, not the right. Just google, "comcast democrats".

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[schlachter]

Isn't the "record everything app" the default state for most of the apps you download from the Google App store?

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[schlachter]

republicans: the corporations must succeed at all costs! down with the people (and i don't mean corporations when i say 'people')
republican supporters: huh?
republicans: we hate gays. and immigrants.
republican supporters: oh, you have our vote!

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[FireFury03]

Comcast offered a $50 cash card if we signed up for internet service with them. We signed up in May, and the card never came. We called and they denied that they ever offered the card. A few more calls later, they agreed that they offered it and said they would send it. It never came. Last month, five months, a final call was made and the card arrived.

Clearly they have a strategy of screwing customers, either through intentional scripting or extreme negligence.

Not just telecomms companies - I'm currently being screwed over by Npower. I was a customer for 18 months, during that time I got a single correct bill and had to spend hours chasing them to get the others corrected. My original contract gave me a discount on the billing anniversary (January) - they never credited the discount, so I raised a dispute in January and they agreed to credit it. Except it never got credited. In the summer I left them as a customer, filed a complaint (about the shiteness of their service and about the unpaid discount) and refused to pay the final bill as it was incorrect. They responded to my dispute, replying to my complaint about the poor service but ignoring my points about the incorrect bill. I re-raised the complaint and got an automated "we'll respond in under 10 days" reply - never got an actual response so I followed it up 10 days later, again no response. The billing department are now threatening to take out a court summons against me for the unpaid (incorrect) bill. The billing department say they can't do anything about the disputed bill or the threatened court action and that I will need to raise a complaint with the complaints department, completely ignoring the fact that I've already tried to raise a complaint several times and the complaints department won't respond.

So now I've sent 50MB of paperwork and telephone recordings to the regulator in the hope that they can beat some sense into Npower before I have to waste yet more time defending myself in court.

I'm left wondering if this is actually incompetence, or if their corporate policy is to conveniently "forget" to pay discounts that were promised a year ago in the hope that most people won't notice.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[sjames]

The problem is that the stupidity explanation has stretched credulity to the breaking point. All those 'errors' across all those departments and they somehow manage to (practically) never err in the customer's favor. The odds of that are so long that even the most generously trusting person would have to suspect there was some sort of systematic effort to make things happen that way.

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[sneakyimp]

I believe it will be partisan largely because of GOP backlash against Obama's recent net neutraility statement. There are a lot of incoherent statements coming from the GOP that sound like blanket "hands off" statements. I'm extremely skeptical they'll have a 'hands off' attitude about net neutrality and then suddently introduce some pro-consumer protections. Not gonna happen.

And I think we all know how Mr. Zielinski's court case will turn out when TW's massive legal power comes to bear on him. Without fear of a powerful legal or legislative entity, TW has no incentive to treat consumers fairly. In fact, the ease with which they augment their profit with these unfair (and illegal) fees is disincentive to treat any customer fairly. I could be wrong, but I have almost no faith at all in the existing legal system to check the abuses of cablecos and telcos.

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[sneakyimp]

I'm fully aware that cablecos are paying my (democratic) elected reps, Adam Schiff, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein. I have, in fact, written them letters (both email and snail mail) lambasting them for being tools of the cable industry. Now that the Republitards have taken the Senate and are spewing all kinds of anti-net-neutraliy rhetoric, I think we can expect a poor outcome for consumers hoping for some relief.

Which brings me to my main point: we need to financially support Jeremy Zielinski so that we can set a good precedent.

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. This is what rebates really are...

I know the product is only worth $50 and I can make a profit selling it for $50 to whoever wants to buy it. You know the product is worth $50 and will buy it for $50. But (let's throw all logic out the window) I will sell you the product for $100 and you will fill out paperwork, cut stickers off the carton, go to a mailbox (jump through hoops) and eventually I will return the extra $50 that you overpaid. Also, I will get additional profits because some people will forget, or can't be bothered, to jump through the hoops.

That is what rebates are all about.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Rebates have other purposes.

One differentiation from a normal plain price cut is info. In this case, you're a Comcast customer and they have said info, but in the general buying-from-a-store sense its a good source of buyer info. if i bought, say, a ShopVac and I had a mail-in rebate, then ShopVac has the name and mailing address of a ShopVac customer. They're now free to use that information in certain ways, such as junk mail, sending me mail for add-ons, etc.

Second is price discrimination. If somebody wants to give me 200 for this, I don't want to get in his way. If someone will only pay 150, well, I have a 50 rebate card he can send in for. There's some effort in the rebate card and maybe the guy who paid 200 loses the receipt or just doesn't want to bother with mailing it in. That's an extra 50 for the seller, called producer surplus.

Back when Joel Spolsky wrote more, he had an excellent primer on pricing. It's written from a producer point of view, but it's a a good read for consumers as well. If you know about producer surplus, you know where you can start negotiating on prices as a buyer.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[TWX]

Or the VP in charge figured that if he didn't assign a job to send them out to anyone, that few enough customers would complain that it wouldn't be a big deal to handle those few that would.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

To be honest, you should be glad you got out with just $50. I'm in a location where Comcast is pretty much my only option (thanks FCC) and I feel I'm getting hosed for more than that on every bill.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[chis101]

deal with the fact that it is probably a debit card or a store use only card, probably has decreasing balance if not used, charges for checking balance, no actual cash value, etc.

The best way (for me) that I have come across to handle rebate debit cards is to, on receipt of the card, immediately purchase an Amazon gift card with the full amount of the debit cart. This works great for me because I know I will be spending money at Amazon at some point anyway, and now I don't have to worry about keeping around the rebate card, the card expiring, or leaving the card with $1.27 left on it which then becomes difficult to spend.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[operagost]

That's not a bad idea. Thanks for the tip.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[jopsen]

Why should the government prevent competent adults from entering into an agreement that includes a rebate? Sure, the companies are hoping that many will not claim it, but that's the customer's choice./quote> Because as you say the companies are actively planning to make the advertised price/rebate not possible, or very complicated for the customer to get. Most rebates only serves to confuse the customer, so they can't see the real cost. This is not honest business.

For the customers to compare products, with such complicated pricing schemes is just not feasible; it would take days to evaluate. In many cases it is fraud, just very hard to prove intent when companies claim institutional incompetence.

Either way, it is a government issue to promote and ensure a transparent market that facilitates competition.

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[puzzled_decoy]

You missed his point- primarily that the Democratic party has been bought and paid for by Comcast. He wasn't saying that Republicans haven't, just that it's unfair to single them out.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[slew]

Rebates are often fraudulent by design. Many companies that offer rebates outsource the rebate to external marketing firms. First, these external marketing firms don't have the same customer privacy code as the original company. Also, marketing companies often buy the rebates on a pooled money basis, they are given a pool of money to distribute to multiple rebate programs and are incentivized to maximize the surplus.

Outsourcing and incentivizing itself isn't fraudulent (just shady), but the reason that it's often fraudulent is that the allocated pool of money to the external marketing firm is never enough to cover the worst case, so they are effectively going into the promotion with the deliberate intent to defraud customers of the rebate and the original company doesn't indemnify the external company for worst-case shortfall (because they don't trust these shady rebate companies enough to think they won't just claim/pocket the money).

Often these small marketing firms often do not have the financial resources to cover the difference (margins are small because they bid down the pool and they don't take out insurance) and often have co-agreements with shady marketing companies that abuse your information. The original companies know this, but generally just look the other way thinking unless it's a total public relations disaster, they will just wipe their hands clean and enlist one of the other available marketing companies in future campaigns.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[aardvarkjoe]

Because as you say the companies are actively planning to make the advertised price/rebate not possible, or very complicated for the customer to get.

I didn't say that at all. Doing that would be fraud, and should be prosecuted under existing laws. But there are plenty of times when obtaining a rebate is straightforward, and you want to make those illegal as well.

For the customers to compare products, with such complicated pricing schemes is just not feasible; it would take days to evaluate.

Well, I'm assuming people who can look at an advertised price of $X ($Y before rebate) and make a comparison, which is how most rebate offers that I see are advertised. If it takes you days to do that comparison, you probably are not qualified to be handling money at all.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[Obfuscant]

Preview is your friend.

Why should the government prevent competent adults from entering into an agreement that includes a rebate? Sure, the companies are hoping that many will not claim it, but that's the customer's choice.

Because as you say the companies are actively planning to make the advertised price/rebate not possible, or very complicated for the customer to get.

No, that's not what he said. He said nothing about "advertised price", and it is already against the law for bait and switch or other kinds of that fraud.

With regards to rebates and coupons, companies are assuming that some non-trivial percentage of people simply will not follow through on the rebate process. The way to redeem either is usually specified up front, and the customer has the right to either accept the terms or not.

It's not every company that tries to rip the customer off by failing to honor a rebate, but many customers choose not to spend the time doing it. I, too, ignore rebate numbers when I compare prices because I know I'm lazy enough not to spend a lot of time getting a $5 rebate on something.

Most rebates only serves to confuse the customer, so they can't see the real cost.

That's nonsense. The 'real cost' is what they pay. They get to see that before they hand over the money. If they choose not to redeem a coupon or rebate, that's their choice, freely made.

For the customers to compare products, with such complicated pricing schemes is just not feasible; it would take days to evaluate.

Also nonsense. "What's your price before rebate?" "What's YOUR price before rebate?" A>B? B : A.

Either way, it is a government issue to promote and ensure a transparent market that facilitates competition.

Part of competition is rebates and coupons. It's not inherently fraud, it only becomes so when one side violates the terms of the rebate or coupon. And fraud is already illegal.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[aardvarkjoe]

Outsourcing and incentivizing itself isn't fraudulent (just shady), but the reason that it's often fraudulent is that the allocated pool of money to the external marketing firm is never enough to cover the worst case, so they are effectively going into the promotion with the deliberate intent to defraud customers of the rebate and the original company doesn't indemnify the external company for worst-case shortfall (because they don't trust these shady rebate companies enough to think they won't just claim/pocket the money).

If the people who apply for the rebate get the promised rebate, then how could you possibly claim that anyone is being defrauded?

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[xaotikdesigns]

That's actually the plan with rebates. They rely on customers not wanting to fill out and send in for rebates

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[ottothecow]

To be fair, many rebates from things you buy at a store are manufacturer rebates.

Best Buy isn't the one paying you for the rebate...so how are they supposed to give you the rebate at purchase time? Microcenter will pre-fill your rebate forms and give you an extra receipt--at that point, if you can't be bothered to mail it in, you probably don't care about the money.

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[sumdumass]

This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. This is a simple consumer protection lawsuit authorized by law- law that has been on the books for quite a while now. Every state has them, even the feds have them. They even allow criminal prosecution in some cases.

But you are in such a hurried rush to make an ass of yourself that you have to "guess" at what the republicans "might" do with a situation that can be handled by laws already on the books just to attempt to hurl a partisan insult. Here is a hint, no politician needs to do anything, the people need to stand up for themselves.

Also, the telcos and cable companies are often regulated by the state public utilities commissions. If more people complained about them to these regulatory agencies who do have competent jurisdiction at the moment and held the asshole ISPs to their words with lawsuits over unfair business and deceptive business practices, the entire fight for Net Neutrality would not exist. That's right, it all is already covered by consumer protections laws in most states. They want to slow your connection because you use vonage instead of their VoIP offering, they want to slow it because Netflix failed to pay them extra, well they are not delivering the service they sold you so false advertising and deceptive business practices come into play and if people would sue or complain to their state PUC (or equivalent) and their state attorney general, it would be done and over with.

Oh yeah, one more thing, the up to "speed" doesn't cover their slowing it down because it will never be up to anything more than the slower speed they limited it at. So no, the up to speed claims does not give the ISP an out.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[antdude]

Yep, TWC did this too with the offered cards. Many people, including my king ant, never got them -- http://www.google.com/search?q..."time+warner+cable"+"gift+card" ... TWC kept blaming people for not following instructions like in the fine prints. However, my king ant, with my help/assistance, did all these correctly. We kept all the proofs, followed up after the estimated times to expect, etc. Eventually, we won and TWC gave us credits for the next month bill instead of sending him the card. It is so annoying when greedy companies do this!! They make it so difficult/hard to get these offers. :(

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[AK Marc]

Best Buy isn't the one paying you for the rebate...so how are they supposed to give you the rebate at purchase time?

Sometimes the stores do "instant rebates". I'm not sure if these are store discounts or rebates from the manufacturer where they worked out a real-time rebate system. In the age of computers, why can't the manufacturer rebate you in real-time at the checkout line?

Microcenter will pre-fill your rebate forms and give you an extra receipt--at that point, if you can't be bothered to mail it in, you probably don't care about the money.

They should pass them via API to the rebate server at the manufacturer, and hand you cash, not more paperwork.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[AK Marc]

In many cases, the "purchase price" advertised isn't the amount of money required to walk out of the store with the item. That's fraud.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[Bob_Who]

So, in other words incentives have a function in business. As you state, we get good results from good incentives and bad results from perverse incentives. When you arrange to reward conflicting interests then unfairness results. The cluster-fuck arrangement that covers the administrative costs of the rebate, in part, with the "unclaimed" rebate pool will ultimately rip off consumers. Everyone else upstream is already paid, but the customer must play musical chairs in order to grab what is left over. This is fundamentally a bullshit arrangement for the customer who does not receive the price as advertised. More lucrative still, this arrangement creates a slush fund for the issuers that only reconcile what they acknowledge. Otherwise the customer defaults, by default. Perhaps the results speak for themselves: pissed off customers. This may not hurt the manufacturer, but someone is paying the price. I won't buy anything that involves rebates again, so it is no longer an incentive to get my business. I hope that $25 was worth it, its the last you'll steal from me.

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[sneakyimp]

This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

I disagree, in both this instance and in the case of Net Neutrality, the hear of the issue is the profit motives of the cable companies working against the interests of the consumer. To me, it's part of the same issue, namely that we need to fix the broadband industry by introducing competition somehow. I believe one way to do that is to regulate them in much the same way AT&T was broken up in 1984. In particular, forcing them to lease their lines at a regulated wholesale rates seems like a good start. I believe this would introduce competition and bring down the cost of internet service provision in much the same way as telecom regulations introduced new long distance competitors and dropped the price of long distance like a lead balloon. It is unfortunate that regulation might be required, but they obviously don't want to really compete with each other. I live in Los Angeles -- one of the most densely populated and urban areas of the United States -- and I have only one option if I want more than 5mpbs. Additionally, the cost of the same broadband connection has doubled in ten years. It's bullshit.

Here is a hint, no politician needs to do anything, the people need to stand up for themselves.

Pft. Ninja please. I'd like to see you stand up against the legal department of Comcast or Time Warner. Also, an additional way that this might be connected to Net Neutrality is that stories about Jeremy Zielinski might well be suppressed by our news conduit i.e., our cable internet connection or perhaps NBC Universal / Comcast declines to ever report about this lawsuit (or any similar class action lawsuit). Should you choose to do so, it's a LOT easier to manipulate public opinion when you control the communication tubes. Personally, I sincerely hope that something (anything!) is done about these cable cos, some of the most hated companies in the world.

Also, the telcos and cable companies are often regulated by the state public utilities commissions. If more people complained about them to these regulatory agencies who do have competent jurisdiction at the moment and held the asshole ISPs to their words with lawsuits over unfair business and deceptive business practices, the entire fight for Net Neutrality would not exist.

You have so much faith in the wherewithal of your average consumer to mount and sustain a legal fight against one of the largest corporate entities in the US. I find this absurdly optimistic and would suggest that you, sir, are the ass.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[aardvarkjoe]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the portion of the grandparent poster's comment that I was responding to.

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[AK Marc]

This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

Except this becoming an issue around net neutrality time could result in one of the famous riders that attaches unrelated things.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[slew]

If the people who apply for the rebate get the promised rebate, then how could you possibly claim that anyone is being defrauded?

Fraud is an intentional tort. If they never intend to give the rebate for all eligible people, then it is fraud if they then do not actually do it (even if you don't complain). If not enough money is allocated up front, and if they run out of money to pay all the eligible rebates they receive, then it seems to me to be fraud (although IANAL)...

There are cases that companies when it comes down to the bad publicity and/or the threat of fraud ruling, eventually pony up. But the FTC doesn't really look kindly on that in the US. Even if people eventually get their money, if they don't get it within 30 days, I believe it's considered fraud. Of course you never hear about the cases where there are only a few people defrauded and they don't complain loudly.

As an interesting aside, one famous rebate disaster happened in the UK with Hoover. The cost of complying with the rebate eventually cost the job of the CEO and the company was sold off... Which goes to show, you can defraud a few folks, but when there are too many, you eventually have to pay the piper...

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[sumdumass]

And when it does, we can connect it. It just isn't at this point. The op in the article is using established laws to protect himself from actions that have been already established by law as bad. If politics did come into play at this point, it should/could be the state AG collecting evidence to file charges/protection suit on behalf of the state's citizens.

But if more people took their experiences to the courts, regulatory boards, and states attourneys offices, i do not think Net Neutrality would be an issue.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[aardvarkjoe]

Fraud is an intentional tort. If they never intend to give the rebate for all eligible people, then it is fraud if they then do not actually do it (even if you don't complain). If not enough money is allocated up front, and if they run out of money to pay all the eligible rebates they receive, then it seems to me to be fraud (although IANAL)...

Well, the question comes down to what happens if every single person actually does comply with the terms of the rebate and requests it. It seems like either some party (either the company that offered the rebate, or the company that the rebate handling was outsourced to) will be forced to cough up the extra money to cover every rebate, or they will fail to pay out the rebates.

You seem to be assuming that the latter is the guaranteed result, but I don't see that it is. I'm not privy to the details of these contracts, but I would be amazed if they don't, as a general rule, spell out who is responsible for costs that exceed the expected cost of the rebate program.

Re: Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[cyberchondriac]

Comcast is deep in bed with the Democrats, not the Republicans. GE is the same. Educate yourself a little before spewing your kneejerk rhetoric. They donate heavily to the left, not the right. Just google, "comcast democrats".

That's because you only have to make donations (bribe) the people who aren't already on your side. Corporate political donations seldom have anything to do with elections or supporting the candidate they hope will get elected. It's all about buying access when they don't already have access.

Democrats are just as big on corporate business when it suits them, just refer to the MPAA and the RIAA; or Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or George Soros.
Donations are often used to lobby for specific favors. The whole "Rs are only for big corporations while the Ds are for the poor downtrodden, common little guy" is a biased myth, prepackaged thinking for those who like things black and white.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[Zxern]

For one thing most manufacturers outsource rebate promotions to a 3rd party. These 3rd parties don't want to make rebates easier for you to claim as that means less profit for them.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[AK Marc]

And you can't see the obvious fix to that problem?

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[jeffmeden]

can't just ban the blatant rip-off of rebate promotions?

If the company honors the rebate as promised, and provides the terms of the rebate up front, then it's not a rip-off. If they don't, well, then that's fraud -- there are already laws against it, although I wouldn't mind seeing more enforcement of those laws.

Why should the government prevent competent adults from entering into an agreement that includes a rebate? Sure, the companies are hoping that many will not claim it, but that's the customer's choice.

I don't like the hassle of rebates myself (when I compare prices, I don't take rebates into consideration), but I don't need the government making that decision for me.

When rebate clearinghouses (the ones who actually fulfill the rebates, maybe) advertise their services as having "the lowest redemption rates" meaning basically that they are the best at scamming customers out of rebate money, something truly fucked up is going on. I agree that regulation should be used very sparingly but the whole premise of a rebate (as it is executed currently) is to entice someone into buying something with the speculation that many of them wont actually fulfill the rebate offer and get the discount they were promised.

The law I would pass is to require any rebate offer to be submitable in store (or wholly on-line for an online purchase) and present the customer with all necessary information and questions to fulfill the rebate at the point/time of sale. The companies can still collect their marketing data and time-shift the discount (the only possibly legitimate reasons to offer a rebate) and the consumers can walk away from the purchase not having to jump through any additional hoops (and open up opportunities for the submission to be lost) to get the money they were promised.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[DarthVain]

My last computer build illustrated a new twist to this rebate bs.

Nearly all the rebates I had now offered an "Express Service" whereby they would "expedite" your rebate for a percentage of the rebate back. They are basically saying that we are going to hold your 50$ hostage for 6 months, however if you simply pay us 10% of that back, we'll get it to you within 2 weeks...

I paid the 10% on all of them that I was able. I know from experience that the longer it goes on the less likely you are to see any money. Rebates are BS.

Manufactures also use it to sell today, what they might tomorrow. I.e. they know their product will cost 200$ today, but in 6 months may only be 150$, so if they sell it now, with a 50$ rebate they they don't pay for 6 months they still make their money, and they can make even more money if they give a 20$ rebate, as presumably they are selling a product for more than what they would have sold it for then...

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[david_thornley]

Rebates are also sometimes used to collect names and addresses for mailing lists. They can't do that with instant rebates.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[surd1618]

The *only* reason to offer some sort of price promotion later instead of just giving you the discount up front and making you sign a contract (even for three months of service) is so that they can roll the dice on customers signing up after being enticed by the promotion, and then not claiming the promotion. Rebates work the same way.

Partly agreeing with others here have said, I can think of two other reasons. One is to get customer information. The other is to hold money a little longer, so that there is more money available for the company to use.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[Twanfox]

And yet there are manufacturer coupons for things like food that grocers accept. Does the grocer accept the hit on that money that the manufacturer decided to entice the customer with, or does the grocer reclaim those funds from the manufacturers? Honestly, I don't know as I haven't worked in that business, but a little logic would seem to imply the grocer gets reimbursed from the manufacturer for discounting the item.

Re:Comcast tried to steal $50 from me

[AK Marc]

Why not? The instant ones I've seen require filling out the same form, or being a member of the loyalty program that has all the same information.

Have you never used an "instant rebate"?

Binding Arbitration

[Anonymous Coward]

Binding arbitration clauses should be illegal in contracts with utilities or what amounts to a utility, because you are effectively stripping a citizen's right to rectifying broken contracts via the justice system. This is no different than when a university/college insists a person who was raped or robbed by one of their star athletes go through their (totally impartial of course) mini-justice system rather than call real police.

Basic contract law says that agreements have to be fair and not one sided, and these increasingly long legalese to run a 0.99 app seems to violate that.

I hope this lawsuit is successful, encourages other lawsuits, and does not snowball into some shitty class action because sending out hundreds/thousands of lawyer teams will be a hell of a lot more expensive than a single one, regardless of outcome. Bleed this monstrous behemoth with a thousand cuts.

Way past time to break it up

[Zebedeu]

[...] the second largest cable company in the world [...]

There's (a huge part of) your problem right there.

This will fail....

[Shakrai]

For starters he filled his complaint with a bunch of throwaway lines that seem aimed at impressing the /. crowd but which are not relevant to his case and run the risk of annoying the Judge:

"Browsing through the TWC website, Plaintiff encountered an advertisement for a "Standard" Internet access line. While the rest of the modern world, and even otherwise-third world countries, enjoy substantially faster and better-value Internet access lines" <--- Not relevant and inflammatory

"After logging in, Plaintiff was able to view an online statement for his account. Plaintiff expected as a result of the advertising that his bill would be $34.99, plus perhaps some small amount in taxes. To his shock, however, the bill was nearly three times that amount – it was $94.45. Although the Internet service was advertised at $34.99 per month, Plaintiff was billed $39.99 for it. There was an unexplained "Internet modem lease" fee of $5.99 added to the bill, and an "Internet, Install service" fee of $47.99 added as well. The bill also included charges for services not yet rendered." <--- Month ahead billing is a standard practice in many industries, ranging from real estate (rent is due on the 1st, not the 31st) to telecommunications. This claim will fail.

He did have valid claims about the unadvertised install fee and price difference of $5/mo but by his own admission TWC waived the former fee while putting him on a $20/mo plan. He therefore he has no cause of action on either of these complaints. They will be disposed of with a simple motion to dismiss by the defendant, without ever being litigated. His complaint about not receiving promised speeds will fail, since the DOCSIS 2 modem they provided him with is theoretically capable of delivering the 20/2 speed he subscribed to; also, by his own admission he signed up for an "up to" service. The only complaint that may succeed is related to TWC's advertised list of "approved" modems, though I doubt very much a State Court is going to wade into such technical matters.

Disclaimer: I have no lost love for TWC and certainly have shared his aggravation when I've had the misfortune of dealing with them. In this case though? His own complaint tells me they made a good faith effort to resolve these issues. It was certainly aggravating for him but aggravation is not a cause of action in our legal system. TWC could win the majority of these points without even filing a response, based solely off what the plaintiff writes in his complaint.

His case is so thin that TWC could probably win a motion for court costs; I highly doubt they'll do that, the negative press would outweigh anything they'd gain, but they could if they were so inclined. This will end with TWC offering a settlement and writing it off as a public relations expense. If he refuses the settlement he'll look that much worse in the eyes of the Judge; Judges hate litigants who reject reasonable settlements.

Re:This will fail....

[omnichad]

This needs modded to +6. He has no valid claim.

I respect the effort

[DavidCBillen]

Reminds me of a character in a Douglas Adams novel who contemplated suing the CIA until a lawyer friend of his advised him that would be like "attacking a lunatic asylum with a banana".

Re:I respect the effort

[crimson30]

that would be like "attacking a lunatic asylum with a banana".

That's assuming the patients are trained in self defence against fresh fruit.

What is the Next High Bandwidth Tech?

[retroworks]

Breaking up the cable companies probably wouldn't do much without a new technology introduction. Break up of AT&T worked in retrospect because of advances in cell phone transmission, a leapfrog technology. Otherwise the Baby Bells would have still owned the local cable (like Fairpoint in New England).

I despise so much about Comcast. They have tech support / sales entertwined... Phone support techs in faraway lands read scripted lines like "your modem is at end-of-life". The "tech's" only knowledge of my modem is that it isn't rented from Comcast, can't tell me anything else? C'mon Tech Supporter! ...If you know it's "end of life" you must know when I bought it and must know what it is, right..? Ohhh... All you know is there's no monthly rent charge? Unfortunately, for now it's the fastest and cheapest bandwidth I can get. No other company is going to run a cable to my house. I doubt making "Baby Comcast/TWC" changes that. There has to be a technical advance, probably via satellite service. When Direct TV can compete technologically, cable will play nice.

Re:What is the Next High Bandwidth Tech?

[OzPeter]

Phone support techs in faraway lands read scripted lines like "your modem is at end-of-life".

Well I had Comcast inject HTML into my http stream in order to tell me that my DOCSIS 2 modem was not going to be supported and that I needed to upgrade. I got a pop-up appearing when I viewed a non-comcast website, telling me that I had to upgrade (and yes I have a screen cap of that popup)

I believe that they were really hinting that I needed to update my perfectly fine DOCSIS 2 modem to a DOCSIS 3 modem purely for their benefit and were using text like

Your modem will no longer be able to operate on comcast's network

Even though their website says that DOCSIS 2 modems work.

Re:What is the Next High Bandwidth Tech?

[Khyber]

Code injection is a CFAA violation. Especially since it bypasses security measures put in place (pop-up and ad blockers.)

You should be filing criminal charges.

Re:What is the Next High Bandwidth Tech?

[alen]

Comcast, Time Warner and other cable companies were originally TV companies. they laid their cable in the 80's and 90's and offered ONLY TV services. they didn't start offering internet until around 1999 and mostly not until 2001 or so as an add on to cable TV. the phone part came around 2003 after vonage came out.

they didn't lay their cables to compete with the baby bells and didn't lay in each other's territories because it was no point in having 2 or three companies offering the same channels for the same prices

the baby bells were born in the 80's and AT&T became a pure long distance phone company. yes in those days you had to pay for LD calls separately. they were expensive and so the baby bells wanted part of it and the 1996 Telecom Act was born where they were required to lease out their local lines in exchange for entry to the LD phone market.

wireless didn't get popular until 9/11/2001 and you still had to pay per text back then

the next tech is fiber, but the estimate is $140 billion for a nationwide roll out and when you run the numbers it's very hard to make a profit when people are willing to pay more per GB for cell service. if history is any guide, cell data will be cheaper in a few years. back when i got my first cell phone it was 450 minutes a month and pay per text and no unlimited minutes for calling on the same carrier

Re:What is the Next High Bandwidth Tech?

[Solandri]

Breaking up the cable companies probably wouldn't do much without a new technology introduction. Break up of AT&T worked in retrospect because of advances in cell phone transmission, a leapfrog technology. Otherwise the Baby Bells would have still owned the local cable (like Fairpoint in New England).

Cell phones had nothing to do with helping the breakup of AT&T. The breakup was about long distance phone service. Bell Systems owned the termination points (the switching equipment directing calls over "last mile" wires to people's phones) so could effectively shut out competing long distance carriers who came up with technologies to bypass Bell's long distance wires. That's what MCI was - Microwave Communications Incorporated. They bypassed Bell's long distance wires by transmitting long distance phone calls via microwave towers. You called a local MCI number, they forwarded your call via microwave to a local phone in the area code you were calling, and that phone called the phone number you wished to reach. Bell handled the two local legs, MCI handled the long distance leg. When Bell tried to shut them down by refusing to connect their microwave calls to the phone number being called, they sued and precipitated what ended up with the Bell breakup.

The Baby Bells still own the local cable. Bell chose to satisfy the U.S. government's anti-trust investigation by spinning off the local phone companies as separate entities. Bell (now AT&T) would remain a long distance carrier (back then long distance phone charges were the most profitable part of the phone business). This eliminated the conflict of interest when terminating calls from competing long distance carriers. Verizon is a Baby Bell. SBC (now AT&T) is a Baby Bell. BellSouth (now AT&T) is a Baby Bell. Qwest (now CenturyLink) is a Baby Bell. The breakup worked because local service became independent of long distance service (and the local services are regulated as utilities so cannot discriminate against any particular long distance service - basically what net neutrality seeks to do).

The Bell breakup is really a perfect model for Internet service. It makes sense to only have one set of wires for the "last mile". So the DSL/cable/fiber company can be a monopoly, but should be regulated as a utility. The internet service itself should be wide open to competition. Anyone who wishes to start an ISP company (analogous to long distance carriers) should be allowed to, and they can pay the local DSL/cable/fiber utility (analogous to a Baby Bell) a fixed rate for "leasing" that last mile. Network packets get sent over that last mile from the home to the ISP. If the customer chooses a different ISP, the packets just get routed via a different ISP.

Re:What is the Next High Bandwidth Tech?

[Wootery]

Why don't they just send an email?

Re:What is the Next High Bandwidth Tech?

[omnichad]

That's because they're probably going to remove the channels that were reserved for DOCSIS 2 at a later time and use it for more overcompressed digital HD or ppv channels.

And even if your DOCSIS 2 modem is capable of that speed, that speed is shared among everyone on your node. The maximum capacity for your node is the DOCSIS 2 speed limit. Not just for you.

Re:Arbitration Clause option

[mrbester]

I don't know about contract law in US, but that would be illegal in UK.

TWC

[BCW2]

I had TV from Time Warner for 7 years. During that time I never once received a bill for the same amount 2 months in a row. Always a few pennies more. Either it is corporate policy to steal a bit from each customer or they don't know how to count. They are really trying to rival AT&T as the most dishonest company in American history.

Re:TWC

[alen]

i'm in IT for another small telecom and help update the taxation database monthly. you won't believe it, but taxes and fees literally change every month.

Re:TWC

[Pubstar]

It's from taxes. Same shit happens with wireless bills.

Keep it classy

[gibbson]

This should be a class action lawsuit. I have no doubt thousands of people feel the same way and have been dealt with similarly.

Re: Keep it classy

[sneakyimp]

I am one of these people. Can we crowdfund this dude?

Time Warner Experience Not Uncommon

[trazom28]

Not with Internet, but with regards to cable service - I called around a couple of years ago to TW, Dish, DirectTV (the providers in my area). Dish and DirectTV were able to tell me exactly what my costs would be Time Warner was advertising it's "First year for $X.xx" plan - so I asked them what I thought would be a simple math question - "What is my bill going to be after the yearly promotion ends?" The answer, "We can't tell you that." (that's a direct quote). So I further inquired as to why they couldn't tell me - and the answers varied between "We don't know" to "We can't tell you". Guess who didn't get our business.

Whether it be poorly trained customer service reps, or actual business practice remains to be seen - but when you can't quote me a price for a service you want to sell me - I have an issue with that.

Re:Time Warner Experience Not Uncommon

[Quirkz]

While I mostly agree with you, there may be some honesty in that answer - they don't precisely know what rates will be in a year and don't want to quote you something that you can hold against them if rates change. Still, they ought to be able to tell you what the non-introductory rate is currently.

  Then there's also the fact that after the first year if you call and threaten to quit most companies will make some minor fiddly adjustment to your plan and give you the introductory rate a second or third year. My crazy company managed this by *adding* more channels to my package while keeping the introductory rate two years in a row. After three years they said I was out of luck, at which point I had to choose between switching, cutting the cord, or paying the full rate for a while. If you're prepared to play the game, it may not ever matter what the standard rate is because you'll never pay it anyway.

Re: TWC are (surprise, surprise) crooks and thieve

[sneakyimp]

Is this not the very definition of deceptive business practices? There are supposedly laws against it.

Please get word to him...

[Cardoor]

he should TOTALLY open a kickstarter to fund his suit. i would without hesitation, donate, as i suspect, 99%+ of all past-or-current Time warner customers.

Because they use all that extra money

[waspleg]

to buy lawmakers and "lobbyists". Where is the anti-rebate money going to come from? Exactly.

Comcast tried to bill me for my own modem

[watermark]

Canceled Comcast internet and got a letter in the mail a few weeks later saying they were withholding my prorated refund check until I returned their modem. I have never own one of their modems and have never been billed for one of their modems. That took 2 hours on the phone to get straight.

This isn't an isolated incident.

[generic_screenname]

Time Warner is famous for this kind of thing in other cities too. I'm glad someone decided to sue.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

all that's going to come out of this...

[Rick Zeman]

...is that TWC will remove the ability for anyone to opt-out of binding arbitration.

sounds familiar

[ihtoit]

companies such as Virgin, Talktalk and Sky run ads which claim like £8 a month for ubercahunadogsbollocksbroadband, and if you're paying attention there's a smallprint flash at the bottom of the screen that indicates that this is on top of line rental at £15/mo and a phone number at £19/mo. Unfortunately for us, that flash is enough to get out of false advertising claims (which is why they did it, but still they push the ubercahunadogsbollocksbroadband deal).

Fucking A......

[OutOnARock]

Fucking A......Where is the kickstarter for this dude????

Fucking A......$0.99 a day streaming of the proceedings where do I sign up?

Fucking A......TWC: "But Your Honor, when we say unlimited for $34.99, we don't really mean unlimited and we don't really mean $34.99"

So "And liberty and JUSTICE" for all

[Stan92057]

"While a lone individual fighting in court against the second largest cable company in the world certainly doesn't have the odds in his favor"

So "And liberty and JUSTICE" for all is meaningless? then why are our children forced to say the pledge everyday at school? It should be changed to

And liberty and Justice for theses who can afford it!!!

Because Money will be the only thing standing in his way to "Cough" Justice.

Have to Fight With Them Each Year

[sudon't]

I have to fight with Time Warner each year to keep my internet price below fifty dollars per month. They must've forgotten to apply the "special" price to this guy's account. Every year they jack up the price without notice, (usually to about ninety-something dollars), and when I call, I'm told that the old price was a "special" price. Then I have to spend a couple of hours on the phone getting the "special" price again. I actually had to cancel my service one time to get them to give me that "special" price. Of course, the most frustrating part is you have no one else to go to - it's Time Warner, or nothing. Meanwhile, my friends overseas are getting massive speeds for about the same money.

Comcast's call centers are a mess

[N_Piper]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
On a side note I think I may have handled one of your calls, defiantly handled a few with missing $50 cards.
I was a contractor in modem support nothing I could do but forward to the Tier agents with mandated minimal communication (though that rule has since changed). Let me tell you those Tier agents are not the best and brightest out there but generally speaking anything beyond basic account operations required an esoteric form hidden somewhere in a maze of "Interactive Troubleshooting Guides", my guess is that after giving up they probably just chucked the card request in the comments and flagged the ticket for further review, rinse repeat until somebody who knows what's going on gets served your call and there you go.

US CLECs (competitive local exchange carriers)

[Mariner28]

This is basically what happened in Canada. Here's my only problem. Since they are in charge of the last mile, when something goes wrong with the lines, they prioritize based on who is their customer. The only way the other ISPs can communicate with them is via email , and they can't really do too much if the big boys are being slow about fixing the problem. This is why the lines should be taken back, and managed by an impartial third party, who's only job it is to manage the lines, and isn't involved in selling internet service.

The situation here in the US after a similar arrangement was required by the Telecom Act of 1996 was even worse: the incumbent local exchange carriers (who owned the last mile drop) were required to resell access to CLECs, and the trouble resolution system was even worse: they (the ILECs) required trouble tickets on re-sold lines to be submitted via fax, rather than a computerized ticketing system . You can just imagine the nightmares the customers suffering from outages faced. They'd call their ILEC they were (not ;-) getting service from, but all the ILEC could do was to submit ticket queries via fax. The ILEC's met the letter of the law, but gave the finger to the spirit of it.

Mod parent up. It's deliberate dishonesty.

[Futurepower(R)]

In 2008, banks arranged bank failures that caused job loss. That allowed companies to fire 10% of their staff and make the other 90% do the work because the 90% were afraid they would lose their jobs, also.

People are so overworked that they don't feel they have time to investigate over-billing. Companies take advantage of that by being as difficult as possible. It's deliberate dishonesty and becoming a standard way U.S. companies do business.

(I imagine that English is a 2nd language for the parent commenter.)

Stupid people do stupid things...

[JakeBurn]

Wait, so this dumbass thought 34.99 for the the internet service was all inclusive? At what point in the entire history of cable companies have installation and equipment not come at extra cost? At what point in the history of any teleco service have those things been free? Good luck explaining to a jury that you're so unbelievably naive that you thought that meant everything else would be free. I use TWC for internet and read the fine print. I saw that I was liable for an installation fee and a modem charge fee. I told them I didn't need a modem and bought a surfboard that was listed on their website as being ok to use with their service. The only thing I see they did was try to charge him 39.99 for a 34.99 service. Sounds like he just turned into a butt hurt baby and decided to get legal. While I hate TWC as a company and detest that I have to pay for service through them instead of having any kind of choice, I hope this guy just ends up having to pay them court costs and lawyer fees. There's nothing worse than some idiot seeing dollar signs when they get a little mad at a company.Hell go after them for claiming they have to charge you five bucks a month for Home Wifi Service when you have a wireless router. I had a CS rep tell me they were providing a wireless service through the cable and had to go three levels above her to stop it. Or any other number of legit reasons they suck as a company. Don't waste tax payer dollars taking up court time for your own stupidity and ignorance.