Want­ a lower Comcast bill? Complain to the FCC

Broadband providers are probably fielding some new complaints now that the Federal Communications Commission has begun accepting formal objections under its new net neutrality rules.And it seems they are responding quickly. Two customers, one of Comcast and one of Time Warner Cable, told Ars that the cable providers gave them price breaks last week shortly after they complained to the FCC about what they claim are unfair billing practices.

These two complaints weren’t about net neutrality violations, but both customers we talked to seemed to be spurred into action by the FCC expanding its complaint system. Moreover, the FCC’s net neutrality order also reclassified broadband providers as common carriers, allowing for penalties if their billing practices are “unjust” or “unreasonable.” The FCC has not said exactly what constitutes unjust or unreasonable pricing.

Customers could already complain about billing before the net neutrality order took effect, but the FCC now has more power to make sure they’re being treated fairly. And Internet providers have more reason to take the complaints seriously.

“We do not resolve individual complaints on these issues,” the FCC says on the complaint website. “However, the collective data we receive helps us keep a pulse on what consumers are experiencing, may lead to investigations and serves as a deterrent to the companies we regulate.”

The Comcast customer we talked to is Massachusetts resident Christopher Ferguson. Nearby providers RCN and Verizon FiOS do not serve his address, so he’s stuck with Comcast unless he wants slower Internet service.

His complaint to the FCC argued that Comcast is artificially inflating cable TV subscriber numbers by making it cheaper to buy a bundle of TV and Internet service than Internet service alone. Here’s what Ferguson wrote in his complaint:

My only available broadband ISP (Comcast) refuses to lower my overall price of service when I remove cable television from my service package. I was “forced” into taking a package initially when I signed up for internet service that included a cable subscription despite expressing that I only wanted Internet service. The price for this package was 35 dollars a month. Internet service on its own without cable was 65 dollars a month. Due to the obvious price difference, I took the cable package reluctantly and have just never watched cable television. For the past 3 years my bill has been slowly creeping upwards until it has now reached over 80 dollars a month for the same service level. I tried to reduce my monthly payments by simply removing cable service, but that would actually INCREASE my bill. In what world does reducing services provided increase the overall cost of something? In a normal, non-monopolistic world, a lunch combo of a sandwich ($6 individually) and drink ($5 individually) would be offered for $10 as an incentive to get both and save a bit of money. In Comcast’s world, if you were buying lunch you’d pay 10 dollars for a sandwich, and a drink, but 20 dollars for just the sandwich or just the drink in order to force you in a financial sense into choosing the combo even if you weren’t thirsty for the drink and wanted to save money by not buying one.

Why does Comcast do this? My belief is that it is to continue to make money from advertisers. In order to keep advertising dollars high, cable subscriber numbers need to remain high. At this point “cord cutters” are so abundant, that if they didn’t INCREASE your price for not getting cable and just getting internet, their cable subscriber numbers would take a dive along with their advertising revenue.

This practice to artificially keep cable subscriber numbers high is harming consumers and preventing them from purchasing what they want and only what they want in order to save money. Please put a stop to this practice by requiring Comcast to offer me a lower monthly rate if I cancel my cable service rather than increasing my rate if I cancel a service I don’t want.

I would go elsewhere with my business, but there is no other broadband company to switch to that provides high speed service as defined by the FCC.

The FCC forwards complaints to Internet service providers, and they are required to respond to the commission and the customer within 30 days.

Comcast relents, lowers Ferguson’s bill

Comcast responded to Ferguson on Thursday last week, a few days after his complaint.

“They first tried to offer me various packages involving cable that would still increase my rate,” he told Ars. “At the very end they offered a slightly reduced bill with the same level of Internet service and no cable. I will be returning my cable box soon. I also made it plain in the call that I’m still standing by my complaint and that I think their business practices harm consumers as this rate was only offered to me after I complained and they were required to respond, not before, when I was asking plainly with normal customer service representatives.”

The Comcast representative told Ferguson that his new price was “promotional” and would “return to regular retail pricing after one year.”

But based on his experience, Ferguson says he thinks complaining to the FCC may be a more effective way to get a lower bill than simply calling Comcast. “I find it amusing that at the beginning of the call she admitted my bill would go up if I canceled my cable service (as I had been told several times before) but at the end of the call there was suddenly a promotion that lowered my bill if I got rid of my cable service,” he told Ars. “The fact that I had to complain to the FCC to get this ‘deal’ doesn’t mean that my complaint to the FCC is any less valid, due to the fact that they continue their business tactic to anyone who doesn’t actively complain.”

We spoke with Comcast about Ferguson’s case. A company spokesperson told Ars that “the best way for a customer to get an issue resolved is to contact us. We have a number of packages and offers, and we’ll work with customers to find what best meets their interest and budgets.”

The spokesperson could not say whether Ferguson would have gotten the same or a better deal by contacting Comcast directly, though.

On the merits of Ferguson’s complaint about bundling, Comcast said only that “the FCC required us to offer standalone broadband service as a condition of the NBCUniversal deal and set a price for it, but didn’t dis-allow bundling.”

In 2012, Comcast paid an $800,000 “voluntary contribution to the US Treasury” to settle allegations that it failed to adequately market the standalone broadband plan that was required as part of its purchase of NBCUniversal. Comcast was also forced to extend its commitment to offer a reasonably priced standalone plan for an extra year, but the extended commitment expired in February of this year.

Time Warner Cable customer decries “monopolistic pricing”

The Time Warner Cable customer we spoke to is Jason Klimek of upstate New York, who complained to the FCC about how TWC charges higher prices in cities where it faces less competition.

Here’s what he wrote to the FCC:

In areas where Time Warner Cable faces actual competition, their prices are far lower than in my market. Currently, I get 50 mbps down and 5 mbps up for $69.99 per month.

Time Warner offers Ultimate 100 (100 mbps), Ultimate 200 (200 mbps) and Ultimate 300 (300 mpbs) for $44.99, $54.99, and $64.99 respectively in various other markets where competition has forced down prices. These prices reflect Time Warner’s pricing in Manhattan, where they face competition from Verizon and Cablevision.

Time Warner Cable has “taken advantage of being the only high speed internet provider by doubling their prices for their same offerings as elsewhere in the country, even in the same state!” he continued. “The Commission should require that Time Warner Cable offer pricing that is in parity with, at the very least, the rest of a given state. This is a clear example of monopolistic pricing contrasted with the same company’s pricing when faced with competition. Moreover, the Commission should condition Time Warner’s merger with Charter on bringing price parity to gouged regions.”

Klimek filed the complaint on Friday, June 12, and got a call from Time Warner Cable the following Monday.

“They started off by stating that at $64.99, I was getting a promo price down from $107, at which point, I told them their website in no uncertain terms states the original price is $69.99 and I was receiving promotional pricing of $64.99,” he told Ars. “Moreover, nowhere on their website does it claim that $107 is the actual price of service. The person was very flustered on the phone and got her supervisor. Her supervisor still could not address my concerns, as my concerns require changes to pricing structures and not a simple fix. The supervisor basically hit the talking points about service, etc. and said she would look into whether there was a promotion they could offer me. She talked to her manager and they decided to credit my bill for two months worth of service. As an attorney, I was quick to state that if I accept this, I in no way waive my rights to pursue this FCC complaint and I do not consider this matter closed. They confirmed this and stated it would not affect my rights to pursue this FCC complaint.”

At one point, “the supervisor conceded that their pricing in Manhattan is different because ‘of the number of people and availability of competition,’” according to Klimek. “Predictably, they could offer absolutely no justification for the disparity in pricing where I pay $64.99 for a service that is 1/6 the speed of their identically priced service in NYC.”

A Time Warner Cable spokesperson told Ars that “the best way to get the TWC Internet plan that’s right for your needs and budget is to contact us,” rather than to complain to the FCC.