Spoof Time Warner Cable Site And Video Asks Customers 'What Can We Do Worse?'

from the tough-question dept

Last week, a lot of people liked that video about what a TV commercial would be for an honest cable company (ah, if only truth in advertising laws really worked...). And, soon after that came out, a few people alerted us to a new "gripes site" called TWCCustomerService.com, claiming to be (you guessed it) Time Warner Cable Customer Service... but using the slogan "Enjoy Worse." They put up a video in which they pose as Time Warner Cable Customer Service employees walking the streets of New York asking people what they can do to make their service worse. The original video on YouTube has been taken down, but other copies are being uploaded in a bunch of places. The website itself has a list of helpful facts, such as:

We have a monopoly in parts of New York City and no incentive to provide customer service.

We will bill you for services you don’t have and fight you when you dispute the charges.

We will set up appointment times that force you to miss work then cancel at the last second.

We can record your phone call but you can’t record ours.

Even if you report a service outage you will still be charged.

If you call one of our customer service experts to disconnect your internet we will continue to charge you indefinitely until you return our modem. We will make no mention of this during our phone call.

We have one star on Yelp.

Our customer service people routinely "play dumb" during an outage and are rude to subscribers calling for service.

The latest American Customer Satisfaction Index ranked Time Warner Cable the 8th worst in the country!

Clearly whoever put together the site is... well... not a happy customer. They also include a... um... "message" from TWC CEO Glenn Britt. As gripe sites go, these guys are definitely pushing it, but it's ridiculous to think that anyone viewing the site would actually think that it's an official TWC site (the guys on the street may be a different story...).

Filed Under: spoof, trademark, what can we do worse
Companies: time warner cable

Facebook Backs Away Quietly From Its CISPA Support

from the good-for-them dept

Many in the internet community were disappointed a year ago when Facebook came out in favor of CISPA. Facebook made its case publicly, agreeing that there were some privacy and civil liberties concerns with the bill, but that on the whole the bill was good. Of course, more cynical people might point out that since the general immunity provisions of CISPA would protect Facebook from liability in sharing info with the government, that of course they'd like it. However, it appears that Facebook is reconsidering that position, perhaps aware of how much public opposition there is to CISPA. Facebook is no longer listed as a CISPA supporter, though it also has not come out directly against the bill. Instead, it issued a statement that says basically nothing:

We are encouraged by the continued attention of Congress to this important issue and we look forward to working with both the House and the Senate to find a legislative balance that promotes government sharing of cyberthreat information with the private sector while also ensuring the privacy of our users.

Still, it's encouraging that a company, like Facebook, which really does rely on the support of their userbase, appears to at least recognize that something like CISPA might not be good for its users. In fact, this seems similar to when Microsoft backed away from its CISPA support last year as well. The article linked above notes that Microsoft still feels the same way, citing the concerns about user privacy with the current draft of CISPA.

So, who is supporting CISPA? The telcos are still there, not surprisingly, as well as mostly infrastructure providers, rather than any company that has a bunch of its own internet users. So, you see IBM, Intel and Juniper Networks. But there is not a single real "internet" company in the bunch any more. Perhaps that should be a loud hint for CISPA's sponsors that the bill is not a good thing for the internet world.

Filed Under: cispa, internet, privacy, telcos
Companies: at&t, comcast, facebook, ibm, intel, juniper networks, microsoft, time warner cable, verizon

Details Of Various Six Strikes Plans Revealed; May Create Serious Problems For Free WiFi

from the the-death-of-free-wifi dept

Ah, unintended consequences. TorrentFreak has been doing a fantastic job sussing out the details of how various ISPs are going to implement the infamous "six strikes" plan. Earlier, it had found that AT&T's plan was to block access to frequently visited websites, while the fourth strike will include redirections to "educational material." Time Warner Cable, for its part, has said that it will direct users to a landing page, effectively interrupting your ability to surf the web without it being crazy annoying. The latest is the discovery of the details of Verizon's plan, which will involve reducing speeds of the connection to a slow poke speed of 256kbps. I don't know if you've tried surfing the web at 256kbps lately, but it's ridiculously frustrating, because pages are optimized for much higher speeds: Comcast and Cablevision (the two other participants) haven't leaked out any details yet, but you have to imagine that the situations would be similar. One thing to note, this isn't really a "six strikes" plan at all. AT&T's more draconian actions appear to kick in after the 4th notice. Verizon's kick in after the 5th notice. I know it's been popular to call it a "six strikes" plan, but our initial read suggested that it was really more of a five strikes plan, since mitigation factors were supposed to start after five. It's interesting to see that AT&T seems to want to push that even further.

All of the ISPs, of course, will say that they're not "cutting people off" from the internet, though they are making connections barely usable. Especially troubling is that, as TorrentFreak reveals in the latest post on this, at least Verizon's responses will apply to businesses as well. So that cafe down the street that has free WiFi... may quickly be throttled down to 256kbps. That will likely mean a lot less free WiFi out there, which is a significant and worrisome consequence of this program.

All of these programs seem focused on driving people to "educational content" about copyright infringement. It will be quite fascinating to see what kind of educational content is provided. We've seen in the past that most such attempts are really bad and one-sided. Even YouTube's "copyright school" is ridiculously one-sided and perpetuates myths about copyright, and suggests that fair use is too complex for you to even bother trying to understand.

Also, as the strikes get higher, there are two things to be aware of: ISPs are then more likely to hand over info to the copyright holders, meaning that it could still lead to copyright holders directly suing. That is, the "mitigation" factors are not, in any way, the sum total of the possible consequences for those accused. On top of that, we still fully expect that at least some copyright holders are planning to insist that ISPs who are aware of subscribers with multiple "strikes" are required under law to terminate their accounts. At least the RIAA has indicated that this is its interpretation of the DMCA's clause that requires service providers to have a "termination policy" for "repeat infringers." So it's quite likely that even if the ISPs have no official plan to kick people off the internet entirely under the plan, some copyright holders will still push for exactly that kind of end result.

Filed Under: copyright, education, five strikes, isps, six strikes, throttling
Companies: at&t, time warner cable, verizon

Time Warner's 'Conversation' Website Ditches All Comments; The Conversation Is Just Them To You

from the that's-not-a-conversation dept

Last summer, we talked about a site that Time Warner Cable had launched called Time Warner Cable Conversations, which it insisted would be a "conversation" between it and the public. As they put it, the goal was "to interact with our customers and to contribute to the on-going conversation about cable." Except... as we noted at the time, they didn't seem to want to discuss what most customers wanted to talk about. The "conversation" was limited to discussions about TV network deals, just as they were fighting with Time Warner Cable about how much the various networks would cost. If anyone wanted to "converse" about things they didn't like about Time Warner Cable, such as it's super low data caps, too bad. The comments on the site were limited and heavily moderated. Even friendly discussions about data caps were rejected.

And, now, it appears that TWC has decided to make the "conversation" even less of a "conversation." It has removed the ability to comment altogether. So, it's no longer a "conversation." It's just a marketing brochure.

This week we checked back and discovered the dialogue had decidedly turned one-way: namely from Time Warner Cable to you. The company deleted the few views that were published on cable television programming costs and removed its comment section altogether.

Of course, this is how companies like TWC view "a conversation." They talk. You shut up and listen.

Filed Under: broadband, comments, conversation, data caps
Companies: time warner cable

Time Warner Cable Doesn't Think There's Demand For Google Fiber

from the in-denial dept

It's sometimes cute to see the big broadband providers in denial about what consumers want (and how little they do to provide it). With Google Fiber getting so much attention in Kansas City, Time Warner Cable has been looking rather dated lately. In trying to compete, it's offering cheaper service to families with kids and increasing WiFi hotspots, but that hardly seems compelling compared to the massive speeds at low prices that Google is offering.

However, Time Warner Cable's latest strategy is complete denial: arguing that there isn't really demand for Google Fiber. The evidence? If there was demand, then Time Warner Cable would be offering a service like that already. Logic!

"If there is demand for [1 Gbps] service we will provide it," Time Warner Cable chief operating officer Rob Marcus told attendees of a conference this week while discussing Google Fiber. Speaking at the Broadcast and Cable/Multichannel News OnScreen Summit yesterday, Marcus stated that while the company may eventually have to raise speeds to compete with Google Fiber, so far the company hasn't had to.

Granted at the moment Google Fiber's footprint is minuscule. Marcus claims that Google Fiber's deployment currently only impacts about 100,000 broadband customers, and around 100,000 cable TV customers. The COO also spent plenty of time downplaying the need for 1 Gbps services, and questioning consumer demand for such speeds.

"It will be interesting to find out whether there are applications that will take advantage of a 1 Gbps service," Marcus said. "If there is, we will provide it. Our infrastructure has the ability to provide much faster speeds today. We're prepared to compete head to head with Google."

The thing is, you don't look to provide the faster speeds after the applications are there to take advantage of it. That's getting the equation backwards. And, of course, there are significant questions as to whether or not TWC could even offer such speeds. But showing up well after there are applications and services that use it, means being way late to the party.

Filed Under: broadband, demand, fiber, google fiber
Companies: time warner cable

Time Warner Cable Suddenly Forced To Compete In Kansas City; Complains Google Has 'Unfair Advantage'

from the i-don't-hear-any-consumers-complaining dept

That didn't take long. Google's move into the fiber business has already irritated the incumbents (Time Warner Cable and AT&T). Faced with a faster, cheaper rival, the two companies (at this point, mainly Time Warner) are complaining that the incentives provided to Google are "unfair."

In order to create the infrastructure for the cable and gigabit internet service, Google was given everything from free fiber, government employees, buildings, and discounted services; an agreement that a Time Warner Cable spokesman feels puts them "at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field."

Time Warner's spokesman seems to misunderstand what the word "incentive" means. When cities attempt to lure businesses they want, they offer concessions, grants, tax breaks, etc. It's assumed that the incumbent businesses have grabbed substantial marketshare and, therefore, don't need to be given incentives to do anything more than stay. If Time Warner is upset that its new competition was given this in exchange for selecting Kansas City, it can't blame anyone else for its failure to offer better services. It certainly was in the position to do so, but it never occurred to the incumbent(s) to make any great leaps in service and speed until it was "unfairly" forced to do so.

This complaining about being forced to offer a competitive service is nauseating enough. But this sentence tops it:

He continued by stating, "We're happy to compete with Google, but we'd just like an even playing field."

No, TWC. That is absolutely the last thing you want. TWC has never been interested in "level playing fields" or "competition." In fact, it loathes competition (and innovation) so much that it's currently the target of an anti-trust investigation for its attempts to neutralize Netflix and Hulu by obtaining programming at lower prices than online providers are charged (among other things).

Hell, TWC has a long and storied history of doing whatever possible to block a level playing field even to the point of writing legislation to keep out competitors.

Time Warner is only interested in a "level playing field" if it means that everyone else has to come down to its level, rather than improving or innovating. In fact, TWC is so worried about Google's offerings actually leveling the playing field and providing real competition that it's offering rewards to city employees for information on Google's fiber rollout.

Time Warner has set up a phone hotline and an email address that will award three gift cards a week for employees that "[share] tips, rumors, and rumblings about Google Construction or launch activity..."

Still, TWC wants its undeserved place on the "gravy train," and has reached a "parity agreement" with Kansas City, MO.

In exchange for the incentives, the cities are requesting that the companies improve their community services to be on par with Google's efforts, which have resulted in free internet connections in hundreds of locations chosen by the government... The WSJ cites an unnamed source that claims Time Warner Cable has improved its service's speed and performance in the area in return for discounts that mirror Google's, as well as a partial refund of city fees that the company paid earlier this year.

"Improved speed and performance," eh? One wonders (loudly and angrily) what the hell was keeping TWC from improving speed and performance over the last several years? Perhaps it was the lack of a serious competitor and one of those famous "level" playing fields that tilts at a 45-degree tilt toward the incumbent provider. As it stands now, Google's fastest offering (up to 1 Gbps) is 950 Mbps faster than TWC's fastest offering.

Google's entrance into the broadband market should be a wake-up call for providers all over the US. Once this service is available, they'll no longer be able to get away with minimal, incremental improvements and never ending price increases. As soon as consumers have a chance to switch, they will, especially when the old school clings to things like binding arbitration agreements (a bad company's best friend) and metered broadband, rather than meeting customer expectations or improving infrastructure. 

Filed Under: broadband, competition, kansas, level playing field
Companies: google, time warner cable

When Captain Picard Loses Patience With Your Cable Service, You Need To Run A Tighter Ship

from the can't-make-it-so dept

As Time Warner Cable continues to lose subscribers and its CEO and others remain in denial over it, it is perhaps time for those in charge to take deep look at themselves. The reason many people end up cutting the cord is that they are tired of the level of disservice they receive for the massive price they pay. You can do web searches for various cable and satellite companies and you can see story after horror story of people's experiences trying to get television or have their current subscription serviced. This is a serious problem and it never seems to get better.

So it really shouldn't be a surprise to learn even celebrities can't get decent service out of TWC. Many of you probably heard the news about the tweet that Sir Patrick Stewart sent after trying to set up cable in his home.

All I wanted to do was set up a new account with @TWCable_NYC but 36hrs later I've lost the will to live.

That is quite the statement. You can even see some of the sympathetic tweets of some of his followers over at Twitter. TWC, for its part, responded to the New York Post with this statement:

There’s no doubt we have a lot of fans at the company, of the actor and ‘Star Trek’ in general. But the truth is, any customer that reaches out to us . . . we’re going to offer them help the exact same way.

That really isn't all that encouraging. If even Captain Jean-Luc Picard, the man who defeated the Borg, loses the will to live when faced with TWC's customer service, how does it think its everyday customers feel? Could this be part of the reason so many jump ship to either become cord cutters or subscribe to satellite, as was the case with Patrick Stewart?

It is time for TWC and other television services to really reflect on what they are actually doing to attract new customers. As the rising generation becomes a generation of cord-cutters and cord-nevers, they will have a tough time at keeping their place in people's homes if they do not change.

Filed Under: cable, customer service, patrick stewart
Companies: time warner cable

Time Warner Cable Is Ready For A 'Conversation' About Rising Costs, But Not The One You Want To Have

from the choose-your-friends dept

It's no secret that lots of internet users hate the idea of metered broadband. It adds serious mental transaction costs in using the internet ("will watching this movie actually cost me lots of money in overage fees?") and generally limits innovation by limiting what you can do online. On top of that, there's little evidence that such metered bandwidth is necessary (contrary to the claims of marketing people, when you talk to the tech people, they don't see any real congestion problems). However, the broadband providers absolutely love the caps because they basically allow them to make more money without having to actually invest in expanding their infrastructure.

So it's interesting to see that Time Warner Cable has set up a site, called Time Warner Cable Conversations, which they claim is a conversation with consumers about how to "fight rising costs." Except... they really only want the conversation to be about rising costs caused by what the TV networks charge to carry the channels. If you want to talk about fighting rising costs by arguing against broadband metering, well, too bad. The whole site is moderated and limited and it appears that only conversations about TV networks and such are allowed. That's not much of a "conversation" now, is it?

Filed Under: cable, caps, costs, meters, tv
Companies: time warner cable

Time Warner Cable CEO Remains In Denial About Cord Cutting

from the it's-very,-very-real dept

There's growing evidence that hordes of people are cutting the cord from cable TV, with many realizing that it's just way too expensive for what they get -- and compared to alternative options. But, as they have for years, it appears that the cable execs remain in total denial (at least publicly) about this. Time Warner Cable's CEO, Jeff Bewkes, was quoted recently as saying that cord cutting "hasn't arrived yet," despite massive customer defections. Of course, to explain this, Bewkes falls back on the other claim that we've seen before: people aren't cutting the cord because of alternatives, but because of the bad economy and the fact that they have no job. Sounds good. But it's a myth. You see, just a week or so before he said those words, a research report came out noting that cord cutters tend to be young, well educated and employed. Kinda makes you wonder what sort of strategy the cable guys are preparing to deal with this issue when they refuse to even admit it's an issue. Pretending that the tide isn't coming in may be worse than pretending you can hold back the tide.

Filed Under: cord cutting, jeff bewkes, tv
Companies: time warner cable

Major US ISPs Agree To Five Strikes Plan, Rather Than Three

from the how-unfortunate dept

Well, this is hardly a surprise, given the leaks about this last month, but most of the major US ISPs have agreed to a "voluntary graduated response" plan at the urging of the RIAA and the MPAA (with some shoving from the US government).

In our original discussion, we noted that ISPs would have the option to kick people off the web entirely, and in our comments we were attacked by an anonymous person involved in the negotiations, saying we made that up. And yet, the agreement today confirms that kicking users off the web entirely is a possible measure for these ISPs. Of course, the folks behind the plan were careful to try to talk their way around this. They say that it's only the web that gets blocked. Email (um, not if you use web-based email), VoIP "or any security or health service (such as home security or medical monitoring)" will still be allowed to go through. Also the agreement explicitly says that they're not talking about killing anyone's account. This is disingenuous, of course. For most people, having their web access blocked is as good as losing your account entirely. Access to the web is pretty much the whole point of an internet access account these days.

Participating ISPs include AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable -- also known as pretty much the only choices the vast majority of Americans have for serious broadband connections. The basics of the plan are a "five strike" plan, rather than the traditional "three." After the fifth strike (and by strike, we mean accusation, not conviction), the ISPs can resort to "mitigation measures":

If, after these educational and acknowledgment alerts, the subscriber’s account still appears to be engaged in content theft, the ISP will send yet another alert. At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps, referred to as “Mitigation Measures” reasonably calculated to stop future content theft. These Mitigation Measures may include, for example: temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures (as specified in published policies) that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter.

Now, the interesting question: will any of this get people to actually buy music and movies again? That seems doubtful. And, of course, it's worth noting that even with this in place, the MPAA and RIAA are insisting that PROTECT IP is necessary. Funny, I thought that the problem was solved once graduated response was in place.

Those behind the plan bend over backwards to claim this is just an "educational" plan. But education plans don't mean people can no longer access the web. Words mean something. On top of that you can pretty much bet that the "education materials" that will be provided will be typically one-sided and misleading.

The other problem with the plan is that it's still based on accusations, rather than convictions, and if the DMCA has taught us anything, it's that people make false claims of infringement all the time. And if you get an alert that you think is wrong? Well, you have to pay to have it reviewed. Now suddenly this can become a "profit center" for ISPs.

Is this plan as bad as three strikes plans found in Europe and Asia? No. But it's still a bad plan. Anything that involves crippling your internet access based on accusations is ripe for serious abuse. Furthermore, there is little to no evidence that this will actually help the RIAA or MPAA and their associated companies. This is yet another case where the industry is so focused on "piracy" they forgot that they have to actually give people reasons to buy. The problem isn't piracy. The problem is their inability to adapt to a changing market.

Filed Under: copyright, entertainment industry, graduated response, isps
Companies: at&t, cablevision, comcast, mpaa, riaa, time warner cable, verizon