<![CDATA[Consumerist: Digital Cable]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: Digital Cable]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/digital cable http://consumerist.com/tag/digital cable <![CDATA[ Charter And Big Ten Network Decide To Play Nice ]]> Reader Jon tells us that he got a call from Charter Cable letting him know that they'd just inked a deal to offer the Big Ten Network and sure enough, the AP is reporting what may be considered "peace in our time."

The multiyear deal announced Wednesday allows the St. Louis-based cable company to carry the network's programming throughout Big Ten territory, including systems in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and northern Illinois.

Charter spokesman John Miller says the network will be included in Charter's expanded basic level of service for the upcoming Big Ten sports season. After that, Miller says the company will re-evaluate the best place for the channel.

Charter strikes deal with Big Ten Network [Chicago Tribune]

]]>
Consumerist-5042575 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:59:12 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5042575&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Cablevision Claims They Are Not Lying Liars, But Mysteries Remain ]]> Cablevision responded to our post chastising their attempt to force customer to upgrade to digital service by pointing to an unrelated FCC mandate. Cablevision admits that there is no connection between their unilateral business decision to cut channels and the FCC-mandated transition to digital television, but their statement leaves several questions unanswered. Read Cablevision's statement and our response, after the jump.

Cablevision writes:

"There is no direct connection between the digital transition of broadcast television stations that will occur across the nation in early 2009 and Cablevision's decision to transition away from the duplicate analog feeds of a certain number of channels that we already carry in digital format.
Great! This fully supports what we wrote and is an important clarification for anyone who was confused by Cablevision's letter or their customer service representatives.

Unfortunately, Cablevision goes on to say:

Neither our customer service training, nor our customer communications, link the two in any way."
Hold on. Let's immediately disprove the second assertion. We posted two recordings unequivocally showing that their "customer communication" blamed the FCC for the loss of analog programming.

As for Cablevision's training, we spoke with four customer service representatives and each one said the same thing. These weren't rogue agents conjuring up their own unsupportable explanations. Two CSRS put us on hold to consult their materials, came back, and repeated their assertions.

When we asked the agents to tell us who instructed them to mention the FCC, they expressly stated that they were following Cablevision's training. We strongly suspect that if we (or you) called back, we would again receive the exact same answer. Could all the agents have made the same mistake, and lied about their training? Absolutely, but Occam's Razor seems to shred any suggestion of a coincidence.

Cablevision admits that their agents repeatedly provided incorrect information. Two questions remain: Are they now lying about their training; and, how will the FCC admonish Cablevision for their deceptive and predatory behavior?

PREVIOUSLY: Cablevision Blatantly Lies To Subscribers As The FCC Twiddles Its Thumbs
Cablevision Uses Digital TV Transition To Upsell Basic Cable

]]>
Consumerist-381890 Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:45:51 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=381890&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Cablevision Blatantly Lies To Subscribers As The FCC Twiddles Its Thumbs ]]> Update: Cablevision responds.

Cablevision is lying to customers by claiming that the FCC will require all subscribers to upgrade to digital cable boxes in 2009. Digital cable boxes cost $6.50 per month, plus an extra $10.95 for digital service. Cablevision recently sent a letter to all boxless subscribers threatening to cut several channels unless they forked out a bundle of extra cash for digital service. When one of our family member called for an explanation, Cablevision shirked responsibility and placed the blame squarely on some crazy new FCC mandate. We called shenanigans and decided to call back and record our chats with several customer service representatives. Inside, the recordings of Cablevision lies and the FCC's flaccid response.

Before we get to the recordings, let's look at Cablevision's fairly innocuous letter:

http://consumerist.com/assets/resources/2008/04/The%20Letter%20-thumb.jpgclass=

Here's the deal: Cablevision—not the FCC—has decided to move several channels to their digital tier. To keep receiving the channels, customer will need to upgrade to digital service with a digital box. Customers who don't pony up for the service lose the channels.

40 million American families don't use a digital cable box. Assuming all cable companies use Cablevision's rates, operators stand to pick up an extra $698,000,000 per month by convincing all 40 million families to shell out an extra $17.45 for digital service. That small piece of change is worth more than the yearly GDP of several small nations.

Cablevision is well within its bounds to charge whatever it wants for service. They can tell us we need a cable box, and that service will now cost $300 per month. That's a freedom afforded by the market. What they can't do is cowardly hide behind the FCC and blame their money-grubbing on the government. Let's listen as they try to do just that:

We spoke with four representatives, each of whom blamed the FCC for forcing us to upgrade to digital cable. We asked one representative how this information was conveyed to the CSRs, and she explained that Cablevision had specifically trained them to point to the FCC.

Let's be perfectly clear: the FCC decision has absolutely nothing to do with the channels Cablevision is taking away, nor does it require anyone to upgrade to a digital cable box.

Don't believe us? Let's see if we can find someone to refute Cablevision.... Maybe Cablevision is up to the task?

http://consumerist.com/assets/resources/2008/04/The%20Truth%20Comes%20Out%21-thumb.jpg

Looks like they know the truth after all. The transition to digital television will have no affect on Cablevision's service.

We spoke with two representative at the FCC who claim that several cable companies have engaged in similar deceitful and fraudulent actions. According to the representatives, the Commission is powerless to take action. One even defended the cable companies, saying:

"Most of [the cable companies] are blaming it on the FCC. It's easier for us to take it. We have broad shoulders, you know? We're the ones who have to explain it to all the consumers anyway when they find the 800 number and then they start calling and asking us: "why is my cable company doing this to me? I want to file a complaint."

Unfortunately, there are no mandates for good customer service. I wish there was! I would really like there for to be a mandate that says: "I'm sorry, but people on the phone at my cable company have to be nice to me and they have to tell me the truth." I wish there was, but there's not.

A mandate for good customer service couldn't be enforced by the 82nd-airborne, but lying? Regulated companies should not be allowed to lie to their customers.

Thankfully, the bespectacled bossman helming the FCC takes a different view. Chairman Kevin Martin recently slammed retailers for lying about the digital transition, dishing out several million dollars worth of fines to Sears, Best Buy and Walmart. Why can cable companies lie, but not retailers?

We know that Chairman Martin is a good guy who likes consumers. Let's go back and listen to the sweet consumer-protecting swan song he sung so graciously in our defense last year:

If the cable companies had their way, you, your mother and father, or your next door neighbor could go to sleep one night after watching their favorite channel and wake up the next morning to a dark fuzzy screen. This is because the cable operators believe that it is appropriate for them to choose which stations analog cable customers should be able watch. It is not acceptable as a policy matter or as a legal matter.

Kevvy was announcing that cable companies would be required to carry broadcast channels (CBS, NBC, ABC, etc...) until 2012, and not Travel Planet or RAI, which Cablevision is preparing to yank. The Chairman did, however, explicitly endorse our right to enjoy cable service without a box, and Cablevision's right to require us to rent one:

...the Commission is not forcing consumers to purchase or lease a set top box to continue watching their favorite channels. This decision lies in the hands of the cable company. They can avoid the need for new boxes bychoosing to downconvert the digital signal into analog at their headend. This downconversion would permit analog cable subscribers to continue watching broadcast television just as they do today without disruption.

This isn't the first time Cablevision has used the DTV transition to beat customers like cash-spewing pinatas. The cable giant was previously caught sending letters to prospective customers telling them that TV would disappear in 2009 unless they started paying $240 per year, despite the availability of $20 converter boxes that will keep the Price Is Right up and running.

Cablevision is clearly engaged in a pattern of deception and fraud. The FCC has a responsibility to investigate and admonish Cablevision for their abusive conduct. Predatory upseling simply cannot be tolerated in a responsibly regulated marketplace.

PREVIOUSLY: Cablevision Uses Digital TV Transition To Upsell Basic Cable
Sears, Best Buy, Wal-Mart And Others Fined For Not Warning Consumers About Analog Obsolescence
FCC Takes Action To Prevent Cable Companies From Dropping Digital Broadcast Networks From Analog Cable

]]>
Consumerist-379852 Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:15:15 EDT Carey http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=379852&view=rss&microfeed=true