Cable Company Totally Unsure What Neighborhoods It Serves, Wants $117,000 For Broadband Service

from the bungled-and-the-botched dept

Fri, Oct 2nd 2015 9:25am — Karl Bode

Here's a tip if you're looking to move or building a new house: get your ISP to write you a letter confirming that they service your new address. While you're at it, get three copies of it from three different executives, have it notarized, and force the ISP to swear a blood oath, because even then you may find yourself without service at your new address. As we've noted a few times, users often assume ISPs actually know what neighborhoods they service, only to later have a Kafka-esque introduction to the U.S. broadband industry's blistering incompetence and dismal customer service.

The latest example comes via a Wisconsin resident who planned to build a new home on a lot both Frontier Communications and Charter Communcations said they were able to service. To be sure, the user double and triple-checked with Charter before beginning the build process:

"Despite not being in a densely populated area, Marshall said the lot was advertised as "cable-ready." Before committing to the purchase, Marshall said, “I looked on Charter’s website, and I typed in the address of the lot, and it said, ‘yep, we can service you.’" Just to make sure, Marshall said he looked up the addresses of neighboring homes and got the same answer. Just to make extra sure, Marshall said he called Charter “and gave them the address, and they said, ‘yup we can service that lot.’" Construction on the house began in November 2014 and finished in June."

The user did everything right short of getting the promise in writing. And guess what? Charter wasn't able to service that lot. Worse, after admitting error about its own network coverage, the cable operator informed the user it would cost him a whopping $117,000 to provide service:

""Once my house was built, I called [Charter] to set up service, and that’s when they told me they made a mistake. I was too far away from their network," Marshall said. In June, a Charter construction coordinator told him he’d have to pay $117,000 to cover all labor, materials, and permitting for a network extension to serve the home. Marshall would have to pay the entire $117,000 up front before Charter would begin construction, and the price would not go down even if other homeowners signed up for service.

The user got the same runaround from Frontier Communications, who originally promised it was able to deliver 24 Mbps to that address, only to later admit it could only provide around 3 Mbps -- at best (and which will likely be force-bundled with an expensive legacy voice landline the user won't want). The kicker is that both of these companies have lobbied to erect state barriers to community broadband, which is often an organic response to this kind of dismal coverage and customer service. So again, this is a market where you've got lumbering ISPs with absolutely no incentive to expand or improve service, literally writing state law ensuring that nobody can do anything about it.

Fortunately the FCC has finally started to attack these state laws so communities can improve their own broadband in cases of market failure, but it's a contentious fight with states busy pretending that it's their god-given right to erect duopoly-protectionist laws written by AT&T and friends. Meanwhile, our national broadband map, which cost $300 million to build, often doesn't help matters. Plug your name into the government mapping apparatus, and it will often not only hallucinate broadband providers in your area, but it will utterly fabricate available speeds. That's because it relies largely on the word of ISPs eager to pretend that the U.S. broadband industry is awash in competition, with much of the data never fact checked.

And good news, everyone! Charter Communications is on the cusp of buying both Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks (in a $79 billion merger), and Frontier is busy gobbling up AT&T and Verizon's unwanted DSL territories. In other words, there's a pretty good chance this exact brand of incompetence could be coming to your neighborhood very soon.

So if you're moving to a new area and an ISP claims they offer broadband, get it in writing. Wander the neighborhood asking neighbors what services they can get. Get sixteen company executives on tape insisting they provide service. Because most U.S. ISPs not only don't know the physical footprint of their network, it's abundantly clear they have absolutely no interest in accurate data, customer service, or being accountable for false promises. When you're the only game in town, you quite frankly don't have to give a damn. And when you're the one buying and writing state telecom law, it's remarkably easy to keep it that way.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: broadband, cable, isp, wisconsin
Companies: charter communications, frontier communications

47 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 8:03am

Well there's your problem...
What tripped him up, and he really should have seen it coming, is that he foolishly thought that they wouldn't lie to him if they thought it would help them and/or they could get away with it.

He foolishly thought that what they told him was the truth, acted accordingly, and was screwed as a result, and is now faced with the prospect of paying an insane amount if he wants his property to have an internet connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:09am
  
  Re: Well there's your problem...
  This.
  
  You cannot believe a single word uttered by cable companies on any topic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: Well there's your problem...
  Well he did get internet when all was said and done. It was just much crappier internet from Frontier than he was expecting to be able to get.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 11:04pm
  
  Re: Well there's your problem...
  A friend recently got snail mail spam from O2 claiming 100mbit VDSL was now available at their place. After lots of phone calls to them, other ISPs and the city it turned out, they simply spammed the complete neighbourhood cause they couldn't be bothered to get their mailing list done. There is no VDSL available and there won't be either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jsf (profile), 5 Oct 2015 @ 7:22am
    
    Re: Re: Well there's your problem...
    AT&T did this with U-verse. We got a bunch of mailings saying it was available. Yeah not so much seeing as they hadn't even bother deploying DSL to our neighborhood yet.
    
    This was in a near Chicago suburb, in a neighborhood that has been fully built out since the 1980's. DSL only became available around 2010!
    
    We do have two cable internet options Comcast and WOW.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violynne (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 8:46am

Has anyone read the fine print on Charter's website?

There's a little caveat, in 1px font:
"Our services cover the entire state, except when any or all of the following conditions are met:
-The serviceable area is covered by one or more internet service providers

-The serviceable area is locked out due to state or federal restrictions, such as military bases.

-New housing developments, but only after construction is near or has been completed.

-Three kilometers, or less, to a pole servicing a node.

-Customer has a beating heart.

-National parks or recreation areas owned by state or private parties.

-Fourteen steps, due south, of any gas or electrical utility box, not painted green, and within a neighborhood of 1 or more homes.

-Cheese.

-Areas with increased risked of severe natural disasters, such as "Tornado Alley", flood zones, and solar radiation exceeding 12SPF.

We reserve the right to update this list without any notice, because we often do."

What's funny about the above "string" attached, it's still better than Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T combined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That fancy Intertubes thingy, 2 Oct 2015 @ 9:38am

These stories remind me of that old saying...
"We're the phone company, we don't have to care!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:11am
  
  Re: These stories remind me of that old saying...
  Lily Tomlin from Laugh In. I grew up on that. Her phone operator character helped make her famous.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHgUN_95UAw
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 9:40am

"When you're the only game in town" doesn't apply when customer is out of town as here.
If choose to build in the sticks, don't expect to be subsidized for your entertainments. Try satellite or dial-up.

By the way, except for the "evil" of big-government "socialism" subsidizing rural electrification in the 1940s / 50s, few farms would be able to afford installation even today.

Got 3 comments in before the browser session was somehow poisoned. There is active censorship on this supposedly free-wheeling free speech site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 9:53am
  
  Re: "When you're the only game in town" doesn't apply when customer is out of town as here.
  So I understand your reasoning? It is perfectly fine to back out of an agreement? Also, I never have had a problem commenting on my side. My guess is you were spamming comments so fast that the system has mistaken you for a spam bot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - lucidrenegade (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:30am
    
    Re: Re: "When you're the only game in town" doesn't apply when customer is out of town as here.
    "My guess is you were spamming comments so fast that the system has mistaken you for a spam bot."
    
    It's not a mistake...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: "When you're the only game in town" doesn't apply when customer is out of town as here.
  Right? Everybody should come to the cities, food will grow itself after all, no?
  
  Awesome reasoning there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re: "When you're the only game in town" doesn't apply when customer is out of town as here.
    @ Ninja on Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 10:04am
    
    >> Right? Everybody should come to the cities, food will grow itself after all, no?
    
    >> Awesome reasoning there.
    
    ??? Are you so lacking in comprehension that believe you've made a cogent response there?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Just Another Anonymous Troll, 5 Oct 2015 @ 8:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "When you're the only game in town" doesn't apply when customer is out of town as here.
      The /sarc was implied. The OP is a prominent spammer/troll. Ignore him.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Whoever, 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: "When you're the only game in town" doesn't apply when customer is out of town as here.
  What, exactly is the "Universal Service Fund" that is charged on my cable bill every month?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:32am
  
  Re: "When you're the only game in town" doesn't apply when customer is out of town as here.
  "Got 3 comments in before the browser session was somehow poisoned. There is active censorship on this supposedly free-wheeling free speech site."
  
  I see you escaped from the mental hospital again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 2 Oct 2015 @ 5:31pm
  
  Re: "When you're the only game in town" doesn't apply when customer is out of town as here.
  Good. You deserve to be censored (even though that isn't what is happening, but whatever, you don't seem to have any realistic relationship with the truth anyway) so no one is going to cry for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 9:40am

I'd bet you wouldn't be able to get a written, signed statement easily. Because that would at least bind them somewhat and they would have to eat the insane cost they are trying to throw towards this customer. Judicially if needed. They are smarter than you paint them, they will not do anything that binds them judicially later. Unless, of course, there are laws that let them get away with it (are there?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- R.H. (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  If they don't give you a written statement, assume they don't offer service there and don't buy the property. For bonus points, inform the seller (or their realtor) of the reason why you're not buying and maybe they'll be able to brow-beat a written statement out of the ISP.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 9:40am

What annoys me the most about this is that they basically want to service only the most valuable customers, but they don't want anyone to be able to service even the customers they don't want, because they might then have to compete with the ones that they do want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 9:49am

typo
Hey Karl, typo in the 3rd paragraph (between the first two quotes) where you put 177 where you meant 117.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:01am

For a short while, I worked peddling Verizon's internet door-to-door.

There were several times that, upon somehow convincing someone to buy internet from a stranger, I wouldn't be able to get the person actually signed up.

I'd double check the address, double check my list of available addresses, everything, only to call in and be told that this one house isn't in the service area (despite both neighbors currently being customers). They also have no idea when it will be in the area. But, I was assured, it will be eventually, why would it be on the list otherwise?

Somehow, I doubt those people ever got Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:14am
  
  Re:
  ...peddling Verizon's internet door-to-door.
  
  My God, what a Dickensian existence. "Please Sir, may I have another...innocent person to lie to?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    No no no, we never lied. We were well drilled on what truths to tell, though, and how best to tell them.
    
    That being said, I never came home without feeling slimy. Even if it was, technically, the truth, I knew it was wrong to tell it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Rereading that, I suppose I did technically lie when telling some people that they could have internet. In my defense, though, Verizon thought they could too until they tried to actually get it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "We were well drilled on what truths to tell, though, and how best to tell them."
      
      So in other words, you lied. Lying is communicating with the intention to deceive. It is possible (and common in sales & marketing) to lie like a rug without uttering a single factually incorrect statement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, that is the correct interpretation of that sentence. I never once felt like I was telling the truth, even if it was factually true information. I was even trying to come up with something that may have been untrue, but I can't think of any.
        
        My job depended on people believing that they were somehow getting something good. So, I guess that was the general lie that I told, even if the details were, technically, true.
        
        Lastly, if it helps your opinion of me at all, I was lied to also with phrases like "we'll pay you".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JoeCool (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 11:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You think that's bad? I spent a month in a cable telemarketing center trying to sell the Disney Channel. Even worse, they were only allowing us to call people who had been disconnected for non-payment of service. So we were expected to talk someone into paying their bill, getting reconnected, and then buying the Disney Channel on top of all that. I think back on that month as "my month in hell". Being a CABLE company, there was NO truth in anything they wanted us to say... other than eventually they'd be billed for the Disney Channel.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 12:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah. No disparagement was meant, I assure you. I can't think of many people who didn't have to do these sorts of crummy jobs at one time or another.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "if it helps your opinion of me at all"
        
        I don't think badly of you. I think badly of the company.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 5 Oct 2015 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That was me. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 2 Oct 2015 @ 12:27pm
  
  Re:
  All the DSL lines were used up and they didn't want to add another one...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:06am

It's surprising that Google Fiber hasn't come to the rescue! What's 117K among the alleged "billions"?
And just think of the good press it would get. Yup, that's the solution: Google Fiber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
streetlight (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:27am

It appears as though they WOULD provide service
The problem is it would cost $117,000 to provide the initial byte to his house. If one could get a letter out of the service provider, better include the cost of installation without any weasel words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:34am

I actually had a similar issue before. When we first moved into this house from the one not too far from here we had AT&T in our old place. The bandwidth at our old place was like 6MB/sec and when we moved here they said they served our area with that. But when we installed it we didn't get anywhere near that, I think we struggled just to get 3 Mb/sec (that was back when this was fast), it disconnected often, and AT&T said it's due to the line conditions at our house. Different customer service representatives gave us different messages. Some reps said AT&T doesn't serve our area with 6Mb/sec speeds at all. One rep told us they would charge us a few hundred dollars to install a new line that maybe better but even then they couldn't guarantee it would give us better speeds. We eventually switched to Time Warner cable. Yes, it's expensive, but at least it's a lot more reliable. At the time when we switched the speeds were 15 Mb/sec (though now it's technically up to 100 Mb/sec but I benchmark at most at ~50 Mb/sec but practically I can consistently download for prolonged periods at like 20 Mb/sec but I'm not complaining, it's plenty fast for what I need). Then, a few months after we switched AT&T called us and offered us a 6 Mb/sec connection, offered us to fix our line problem (by installing a new line if necessary) and assured us it would be fixed and reliable without disconnecting us and reliably give us the 6Mb/sec speeds. We figured it wasn't worth the hassle and were happy with Time Warner (though not so much the price) and kept it. AT&T essentially lost a long term DSL customer (we have been with them for many years before that in our old place) because of their poor customer service at our new place and, once we switched from one company to another and are happy with their service unless there is a good reason to switch back it's not worth the hassle. Lesson learned for AT&T, it's much easier to keep an existing customer than it is to gain a new customer or to get back a customer once you lost them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:36am

stealing the bricks that hold up the house after robbing the treasury comes to mind.

These types of companies don't seem to care they are destroying the country's long term infrastructure as long as they profit in the short term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:38am

ISPs get it wrong the other way to
The ISPs get their maps wrong the other way to, insisting they can't sell you services that ARE available in your area.

At the business I work at, our next door neighbor is a dental business, and they had Verizon FIOS. We could see FIOS boxes outside of some of our windows. Yet Verizon kept insisting FIOS wasn't available in our area when we contacted them to purchase it. We had to get them to send out a technician just to prove to them that FIOS was available in our area.

When we expanded and moved to a bigger office building a few blocks down we had to go through the exact same mess 2 years later.

And then a year after that, we got a knock on our door one day by a Verizon Salesman, trying to sell us the Verizon FIOS we already had. Apparently they finally thought it had 'just' been installed in the area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 10:48am
  
  Re: ISPs get it wrong the other way to
  "The ISPs get their maps wrong the other way to, insisting they can't sell you services that ARE available in your area."
  
  I had this happen to me once. I wanted DSL, but the phone company said that I was too far from the post. I then learned that my neighbor had DSL despite being one lot further from the post as me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 2 Oct 2015 @ 12:33pm
    
    Re: Re: ISPs get it wrong the other way to
    This happened to me too. I caught an AT&T technician at the box and asked him about it. He showed me that the DSL terminal was full and my one account wouldn't pay for the installation for 10+ years.
    
    Back then, the technician told me that I could go with a competitor for a fixed fee and they would HAVE to install the extra DSL hub, so I did that.
    
    Then all of a sudden, AT&T calls me saying they have service at my address now and they can hook me up. Like a stupid fool, I went with AT&T (because it was $10/month cheaper). We had billing problems every month for 18 months straight! My poor wife spent an hour a month on the phone with AT&T for a year and a half!
    
    Finally Adelphia showed up with cable modem and they got bought by Time Warner and it has always been great.
    
    Now, I'm just hoping that Charter doesn't screw it up. First Comcast and now this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 11:13am

I don't get where they get off trying to charge a potential customer over 100k so that they can charge monthly fees to deliver the service they promised. Charter needs to eat the cost to expand their customer base. That's how business works!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 2 Oct 2015 @ 11:20am
  
  Re:
  Because F*** YOU!!!!!
  
  - Charter Customer Service
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DB (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 11:34am

You can be certain that it doesn't actually cost $117K to extend service to the house.

Yes, I'm certain that if they needed to come up with justification for that number, a whole bunch of expenses could be allocated to that work order.

The reality is that either they want the residents to pay for their CapEx, or they are looking for future government subsidies to underwrite it in some way. Perhaps an increase in rates, an outright grant, or an expansion in exclusive territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teamchaos (profile), 2 Oct 2015 @ 12:50pm

No company is free from incompetent help providing bad advice and I feel for the homeowner who got screwed.

However, if you're in the service area, Charter delivers damn fine internet service. They've always provided more bandwidth than I was paying for and upgraded me to 100Mbs for free. Their customer service is generally excellent (sales people apparently not so excellent).

Their TV service sucks, but their internet is top notch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wilbert, 2 Oct 2015 @ 1:43pm

One can hope that the general public will start losing interest in outrage and just ignore most news outlets.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2015 @ 2:51pm

and yet another example of members of Congress just serving themselves instead of the people who elected them for representation! it's so much easier to accept an 'offering' from a company than actually get it to do something it knows it should do but prefers to just fuck people up!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F.J. Bergmann (profile), 3 Oct 2015 @ 7:08am

Wisconsin Charter
We bought a house in Wisconsin in 2003. Because I was self-employed as a web designer, broadband availability was a paramount concern. Charter assured us that DSL was available at the location of the house we ended up buying. It wasn't. We paid through the nose for inadequate connections for years. Even more infuriatingly, we got frequent junk mail offering high-speed internet--at over $100 a MONTH less than what we were paying--but every time we called, it was "still unavailable." Finally, this spring I checked again, after the latest junk mailing … and they said it was available now … only to tell my husband, when he called to authorize it, as the account holder, that no, it wasn't. He decided to try signing up online anyway, just in case--and it went through. No telling at what point DSL might have actually been available to us--Charter has no idea what it's doing. The frosting on the cake was when we had some initial problems with the modem (as it turned out, because the installers left the old modem hooked up as well), and I waited all afternoon for a tech who kept calling for directions. Turns out because he was in Arkansas, not Wisconsin. Bravo, Charter!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tqk (profile), 4 Oct 2015 @ 11:27am

Nuke it from orbit!
"Once my house was built, I called [Charter] to set up service, and that’s when they told me they made a mistake. I was too far away from their network," ...

That's when all those taxpayer subsidies they're getting kick in, right? Hello? Hello!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]