TWC FCC violation?

For questions regarding Co-ax wiring, and to complain about your cable co.
Post Reply
jziggity

Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:11 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

TWC FCC violation?

#1

Post by jziggity » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:28 pm

I have what I believe to be an FCC violation on the part of TWC - Milwaukee. I plan on submitting an online complaint with the FCC shortly, but figured I would post the specifics here and see what other people think.

Back on 11/21/12 I called TWC and got signed up with the new customer deal, $89.99 for TV, internet and phone, plus taxes, equipment and fees, as I was coming to the end of my then current deal. No problems with that, my next bill showed the correct pricing. On 12/18/12, I returned my 2 TWC boxes (1 HD DVR box and 1 HD converter box) to the local TWC store, as I now had my new HTPC with InfiniTV4 PCI card set up, along with extenders. I specifically asked when I turned in my equipment at the store, "This will not impact my current package in any way, correct? I should just no longer be charged for this equipment?" To which came the response, "That is correct."

In calling TWC today about a different billing question, I discovered my bill was set to go up to $193.00 next month. WHHAAAAAT? I did some quick research and responded back to TWC that this was absolutely not acceptable, and a clear violation of FCC rules regarding cablecards (see the very first bullet point at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cablecard-know-your-rights). I believe the rule on this page exactly addresses my specific situation. TWC didn't see it that way, and responded that they "can not" keep me in the same package, because that package included DVR service, and I no longer have DVR service since I turned in my DVR box.

I tried explaining to them that I can go to TWC's own website and sign up (as a new customer) for the exact package I have now, and select "Cablecard" as the option for desired equipment, and the system allows me to proceed with no problems. They really didn't have an answer for this. Their constant argument is that they "can't" (which I interpret as "won't") put me in a package that includes DVR service, since I don't have their DVR box.

I contend this is a clear violation of FCC rule 76.1205(b)(5). They contend the FCC doesn't have authority to rule on the pricing of their packages. I stand by my position that this rule specifically addresses customers being able to use their own equipment and receiving a discount for same. I guess we'll let the FCC figure this one out. What says everyone else?

User avatar
makryger

Posts: 2132
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Illinois

HTPC Specs: Show details

#2

Post by makryger » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:03 pm

Switch to verizon fios!
My Channel Logos XL: Get your Guide looking good! ~~~~ TunerSalad: Increase the 4-tuner limit in 7MC

richard1980

Posts: 2623
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:15 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#3

Post by richard1980 » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:38 pm

According to the FCC rules, TWC must make this offer available to you and must give you a discount for not having their box. However, the FCC's discount rule only applies to hardware. The FCC does not require any cable company to give a discount for service fees (such as the DVR service fee).

However, having a DVR is generally considered a prerequisite for having DVR service. I expect lower level CSRs to have protective measures that can't be overridden (such as only allowing DVR service to be added if a DVR is added). That said, there should be someone higher up the chain that can override the system and authorize the package without a DVR. If they're nice, you could probably even get them to give a discount for the DVR service that you won't be able to use.

TWC is partially correct about the FCC's authority. While the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the rates of the service tiers, they do have the authority to regulate the equipment...which they do (see 47 CFR §76.923).

jziggity

Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:11 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#4

Post by jziggity » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:47 pm

makryger wrote:Switch to verizon fios!
Oh how I wish I could. Sadly it is not offered in my area (only TWC and AT&T and satellite). I would switch in a heartbeat to FIOS. My understanding is that Verizon has no plans on expanding their service area either. *sigh*

jziggity

Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:11 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#5

Post by jziggity » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:53 pm

I am basing my argument on the following excerpt from FCC rule 76.1205(b)(5):

For any bundled offer combining service and an operator-supplied navigation device into a single fee, including any bundled offer providing a discount for the purchase of multiple services, such provider shall make such offer available without discrimination to any customer that owns a navigation device, and, to the extent the customer uses such navigation device in lieu of the operator-supplied equipment included in that bundled offer, shall further offer such customer a discount from such offer equal to an amount not less than the monthly rental fee reasonably allocable to the lease of the operator-supplied navigation device included with that offer. For purposes of this section, in determining what is ‘‘reasonably allocable,’’ the Commission will consider in its evaluation whether the allocation is consistent with one or more of the following factors:

In particular, I am honing in on this statement:

"such provider shall make such offer available without discrimination to any customer that owns a navigation device..."

To me, this exactly describes my situation. Moreover, I know that the FCC does not set rates, but in this case the FCC DOES state that I cannot be booted from the package I was currently in just because I elected to use my own equipment and return TWC's equipment to them. I also have digital phone with voice mail included in this package. I do not use the voice mail, as I just use the answering machine that is integrated into my cordless phone. Not using the voice mail service does not preclude me from obtaining this package pricing, just as not actually using TWC's DVR service should not exclude me from the package pricing either.

The beautiful part regarding the DVR service fee is that it is already rolled into the package price of $89.99/month. So I'm not even asking for a discount on that service, because I won't be using it, and "removing it" from the package will not change anything, just like removing voice mail from the package pricing would not serve any purpose either.

And what is the DVR "service" anyway? Is there really any set of special signals or data that TWC sends over their lines that makes up this "service?" I highly doubt it - it seems to me it is more like another way to soak an extra $10 out of customers each month, if they are paying for that service separately (which I am not).

richard1980

Posts: 2623
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:15 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#6

Post by richard1980 » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:43 pm

I wasn't arguing against you, I was just saying I can understand why a lower level CSR wouldn't have the ability to make the required change. It would be a protective measure to ensure someone with a non-DVR STB doesn't accidentally get charged the DVR service fee. I would fully expect someone higher in the chain to be able to give you the package without the DVR (and possibly without the DVR service fee).

You are correct about the DVR service fee. People are willing to pay it, so the cable company charges it. If people weren't willing to pay it, the fee wouldn't exist.

jziggity

Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:11 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#7

Post by jziggity » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:13 am

I hear you Richard. Unfortunately the person I talked to over the phone was the exact same person I spoke with last time I filed an FCC complaint against TWC (last month, for their complete inability to know ANYTHING about their own tuning adapter equipment). This same person is the one at TWC who was assigned my last FCC complaint. I told her straight-out that I was planning on filing another FCC complaint, and that didn't seem to phase her. I can only imagine what kind of flags my account has in their system...

They just don't get it that they can't boot me from my current pricing plan just because I'm not using their equipment. In the mean time, I got them to get me into a slightly lower pricing plan ($122 and some change a month), as this whole FCC complaint process could take up to 45 days.

At this point I would volunteer to help Verizon trench in the lines to my neighborhood for FIOS. In looking at the Verizon site, they have much better service levels at comparable or better prices. And, it would still work with my HTPC setup. A man can dream...

erkotz

Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#8

Post by erkotz » Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 pm

richard1980 wrote:According to the FCC rules, TWC must make this offer available to you and must give you a discount for not having their box. However, the FCC's discount rule only applies to hardware. The FCC does not require any cable company to give a discount for service fees (such as the DVR service fee).
I actually had a discussion with an FCC attorney regarding DVR service fees the other day, and his opinion was that it definitely violated the spirit of the rule, though he agreed it would take some research to decide if it was violating the letter.

OP, I would agree that it sounds like what occurred is not within the FCC guidelines. In addition to whatever steps you are taking, feel free to open a support ticket with us (and say I told you to) and we will see what we can do.
Quality Assurance Manager, Ceton Corporation

richard1980

Posts: 2623
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:15 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#9

Post by richard1980 » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:46 pm

I agree that it violates the spirit of the rule. But ultimately the only thing that matters is what's actually written into the law, and the law only singles out the navigation device. The FCC needs to reword the law a bit to account for services/features that require the use of a navigation device other than the one the customer is using. I don't know about anyone else, but I pay a few dollars each month for stuff that I can't even get....things like the Cox-provided EPG, the on-demand system, etc.

jziggity

Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:11 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#10

Post by jziggity » Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:41 am

Thank you for the follow-up comments. My opinion that this is still a very CLEAR FCC violation is based on the part of the rule that states "such provider shall make such offer available without discrimination to any customer that owns a navigation device..." That applies to exactly what is happening to me. I was in a plan that cost $89.99/month, which so happened to include the DVR service. The DVR box itself, of course, was an extra $10/month fee. I'm not arguing the DVR "service" fee, even though we all know that's a bunch of BS too. The DVR "service" is included in the price of the plan, so there's no point in even arguing that, because whether it is there or not does not change the price of the plan.

TWC's position is that the FCC doesn't have authority to set pricing plans. This is true. I am arguing the apple is red, their response is "No, it is round." While TWC's assertion is correct, it does not apply to the argument I am making. The FCC has clearly established with this rule that a cable company MUST offer the same packages to customers whether they use the cable company's supplied equipment or elect to use their own equipment. No discrimination, no different treatment, period. The rule is quite clear on this. When they booted me from my then current pricing plan because I returned their boxes and elected to use my own equipment, they discriminated against me by not allowing me access to the same plan as everyone else, based ONLY on the fact that I was no longer using their equipment. I fail to see where the ambiguity is here.

Eric, I will certainly take you up on the trouble ticket offer. Other avenues I will be exploring include contacting TWC's corporate office, and contacting my local TV station's consumer protection department. They love stories like this, where the big bad company is trying to walk all over the insignificant, individual customer. I don't know that they will do a story or not, completely up to them obviously.

Incidentally, before I submitted my FCC complaint online, I called their main # from their website, just to make sure I wasn't missing something. The guy I talked to highly encouraged me to submit a complaint. He said he obviously couldn't give me a ruling over the phone, but also said the FCC is EXTREMELY interested in anything cablecard related, and whether or not cable companies are following the rules.

richard1980

Posts: 2623
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:15 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#11

Post by richard1980 » Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:03 am

jziggity wrote:That applies to exactly what is happening to me. I was in a plan that cost $89.99/month, which so happened to include the DVR service. The DVR box itself, of course, was an extra $10/month fee.
The core requirement of the FCC's rule is that the offer must combine service and an operator-supplied navigation device into a single fee. No part of 47 CFR 76.1205(b)(5)(B)(2) applies to any offer that does not combine service and an operator-supplied navigation device into a single fee. According to your statement, they are not combined into a single fee. The cost of service is $89.99. The cost of the operator-supplied navigation device is a separate fee of $10.

Given this information, I have to side with TWC. Not only are they not violating the FCC's rule, but the FCC has no authority to regulate the specific plan you are trying to get (I think that is correct. Either they don't have the authority or they choose not to regulate the rates. I know they can (and do) regulate the rates of the basic tier.) The FCC's authority (whether by statute or by choice) is limited to the $10 per month fee for the DVR.

Additionally, it now makes sense why you can't get the plan. The plan includes DVR service (but not the DVR itself), which means the plan is only available to people that pay for a DVR. No DVR = no DVR service = no plan.
jziggity wrote:The DVR "service" is included in the price of the plan, so there's no point in even arguing that, because whether it is there or not does not change the price of the plan.
Actually, yes it does. This is the very thing the FCC's rule is designed to accomplish, except they only wrote the rule for the hardware side. To explain, let's pretend TWC bundled the DVR into the plan you had. They would no longer charge $89.99. They would charge $99.99. According to you, because the DVR is included in the price of the plan, the absence of the DVR would not change the price of the plan. However, the FCC rule requires TWC to discount the plan because you wouldn't be using their DVR. So by all rights, you should only have to pay $89.99 for the plan. The same logic should be used with respect to the DVR service fee, but unfortunately, it's not written into law at this time (which makes sense because the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the rates of the service....assuming that is correct. If not, it still makes sense because they choose not to regulate the rates.)

erkotz

Posts: 1378
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#12

Post by erkotz » Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:38 am

jziggity wrote:Thank you for the follow-up comments. My opinion that this is still a very CLEAR FCC violation is based on the part of the rule that states "such provider shall make such offer available without discrimination to any customer that owns a navigation device..." That applies to exactly what is happening to me. I was in a plan that cost $89.99/month, which so happened to include the DVR service. The DVR box itself, of course, was an extra $10/month fee. I'm not arguing the DVR "service" fee, even though we all know that's a bunch of BS too. The DVR "service" is included in the price of the plan, so there's no point in even arguing that, because whether it is there or not does not change the price of the plan.
While IANAL, I agree that "un-bundling" when the STB is returned is a clear violation - my statement was specifically regarding the DVR service fee.
richard1980 wrote:
jziggity wrote:That applies to exactly what is happening to me. I was in a plan that cost $89.99/month, which so happened to include the DVR service. The DVR box itself, of course, was an extra $10/month fee.
The core requirement of the FCC's rule is that the offer must combine service and an operator-supplied navigation device into a single fee. No part of 47 CFR 76.1205(b)(5)(B)(2) applies to any offer that does not combine service and an operator-supplied navigation device into a single fee. According to your statement, they are not combined into a single fee. The cost of service is $89.99. The cost of the operator-supplied navigation device is a separate fee of $10.

Given this information, I have to side with TWC. Not only are they not violating the FCC's rule, but the FCC has no authority to regulate the specific plan you are trying to get (I think that is correct. Either they don't have the authority or they choose not to regulate the rates. I know they can (and do) regulate the rates of the basic tier.) The FCC's authority (whether by statute or by choice) is limited to the $10 per month fee for the DVR.

Additionally, it now makes sense why you can't get the plan. The plan includes DVR service (but not the DVR itself), which means the plan is only available to people that pay for a DVR. No DVR = no DVR service = no plan.
jziggity wrote:The DVR "service" is included in the price of the plan, so there's no point in even arguing that, because whether it is there or not does not change the price of the plan.
Actually, yes it does. This is the very thing the FCC's rule is designed to accomplish, except they only wrote the rule for the hardware side. To explain, let's pretend TWC bundled the DVR into the plan you had. They would no longer charge $89.99. They would charge $99.99. According to you, because the DVR is included in the price of the plan, the absence of the DVR would not change the price of the plan. However, the FCC rule requires TWC to discount the plan because you wouldn't be using their DVR. So by all rights, you should only have to pay $89.99 for the plan. The same logic should be used with respect to the DVR service fee, but unfortunately, it's not written into law at this time (which makes sense because the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the rates of the service....assuming that is correct. If not, it still makes sense because they choose not to regulate the rates.)
Again, IANAL, but at an *absolute* minimum, the package should not increase beyond the $89.95/month when the DVR is returned. As far as I know, the legality of bundling DVR service fees has not been tested, so all I can say is both the FCC attorney I spoke with, and myself, believe this violates the spirit of the law.
Quality Assurance Manager, Ceton Corporation

jziggity

Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:11 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#13

Post by jziggity » Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:48 pm

"Additionally, it now makes sense why you can't get the plan. The plan includes DVR service (but not the DVR itself), which means the plan is only available to people that pay for a DVR. No DVR = no DVR service = no plan."

This is where TWC wants to have their cake and eat it too. If that is going to be their argument (and I don't know that it is), this is also not correct. Any new customer can sign up for my exact same deal on TWC's very own website, and select "cablecard" and ONLY the cablecard as the TV equipment option when putting together the bundle. This right here disproves their point that they "can't" allow me into the same package. TWC's own website allows it, so they should have no problems putting me back into it.

By the argument that the whole rule doesn't apply because there is a separate fee for the DVR box, TWC is admitting the DVR "service" fee and the box can be separated - but that is their entire reason as to why I can no longer have this plan in the first place. By their own admission, they are tied together. So TWC is trying to have it both ways by arguing the service fee and the box CAN be separated, but only for the purpose of determining if this specific FCC rule applies, then it's back to "nope, we can't separate them" for the purpose of this pricing plan?? Not going to fly in my eyes, or the FCC's I believe.

Thank you everyone for the feedback. I have no doubt TWC will try to stand on a technicality, and that they want to have this situation ruled both ways depending on which side of the issue is being considered. We shall see....

richard1980

Posts: 2623
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:15 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#14

Post by richard1980 » Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:38 pm

erkotz wrote:Again, IANAL, but at an *absolute* minimum, the package should not increase beyond the $89.95/month when the DVR is returned.
The FCC does not regulate rates for cable systems that are subject to effective competition, and this situation is not covered by 47 CFR § 76.1205(b)(5)(B)(2) because the STB is not part of the bundle (the first 16 words of that paragraph are very clear: "For any bundled offer combining service and an operator-supplied navigation device into a single fee"). So there's no legal barrier to the rate increase. Additionally, I'm betting the advertised rate is actually a promotional rate with terms and conditions. By not following the terms and conditions, the promotional rate does not apply and the rate for the subscribed services reverted to the non-promotional rate. Obviously the promotional rate theory is pure speculation on my part, but I think there's a very good chance I am correct.
erkotz wrote:As far as I know, the legality of bundling DVR service fees has not been tested, so all I can say is both the FCC attorney I spoke with, and myself, believe this violates the spirit of the law.
I'm not sure that there's anything the FCC could do other than alter the existing rules. I don't think it's unreasonable for the rule to extend to services that require the use of an operator-supplied navigation device, but there are two problems. First, DVR service is not a regulated service (I don't even think it meets any kind of definition for the word "service"). Second, the FCC doesn't regulate service rates for cable systems that are subject to effective competition, so I'm not sure they would even consider addressing this.
jziggity wrote:Any new customer can sign up for my exact same deal on TWC's very own website, and select "cablecard" and ONLY the cablecard as the TV equipment option when putting together the bundle.
I'm sure that if you look closer, you'll find that it is impossible for such a customer to sign up for any package that includes DVR service. Upon selecting a CableCARD, DVR service should be removed from the package. Additionally, I'm sure you'll also see something like the following statement in the fine print: "Offers valid for new residential customers ordering online only." You aren't a new residential customer. You are an existing residential customer. Therefore, any offer you find online does not have to be extended to you.
jziggity wrote:By the argument that the whole rule doesn't apply because there is a separate fee for the DVR box, TWC is admitting the DVR "service" fee and the box can be separated - but that is their entire reason as to why I can no longer have this plan in the first place.
No, their reason for why you can't have the plan is because they can't separate DVR service from the bundle. The bundle you want includes a charge for DVR service. You can't have that bundle unless you agree to having DVR service. You can't have DVR service unless you agree to having their DVR box. There is no rule prohibiting the cable company from requiring customers to have certain operator-owned equipment in order to receive non-regulated services. In fact, there is a rule that prohibits the cable company from charging your for any service that you have not affirmatively requested by name. Rejection of the DVR itself could be legally interpreted as a rejection of DVR service, so it is in TWC's best interest to refuse to allow you to have DVR service without a DVR box.
jziggity wrote:So TWC is trying to have it both ways by arguing the service fee and the box CAN be separated, but only for the purpose of determining if this specific FCC rule applies, then it's back to "nope, we can't separate them" for the purpose of this pricing plan?? Not going to fly in my eyes, or the FCC's I believe.
TWC is separating the DVR box from all services for pricing purposes. That's why you have to pay a separate fee for the box. What they are not doing is separating one "service" fee from a bundle of other service fees. As I said, there's nothing illegal about that.

jziggity

Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:11 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#15

Post by jziggity » Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:30 pm

I see your arguments Richard, but I also see the FCC (hopefully) standing behind my counter-arguments. TWC voluntarily offered me a new customer rate, even though I am indeed not a new customer. No one forced them to do so, they did it of their own free will. That being said, I was put into that "class" of being a new customer, and am entitled to the same package rates as any other new customer. I am not asking the FCC to rule on specific package pricing, I am asking that the rule that there be no discrimination in terms of who is offered what package be enforced.

TWC has insisted the DVR box and service are inseparable, which I will concede is the case. Assuming that to be the case, it has to be considered true across the board, including when deciding whether or not the FCC rule in question applies here. Either they are inseparable or they are not, but not both ways. If they ARE inseparable, then the FCC rule applies. This is because the fee for the box, though listed separately, is inherently joined to the service fee and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other, therefore I would consider the fee for the STB to be part of the bundle, regardless of how it is itemized on the bill. Semantics, I know.

If they ARE able to be separated, then TWC had no authority to bounce me out of the plan in the first place. Just as I have their voice mail service but do not use it, there is nothing preventing me from having the DVR service and not using it. There is also nothing preventing them from adjusting my plan to show only the cablecard in place of a DVR box and service. They are just electing to not do this, which was my original request of them.

Thank you for the perspective from the other side of the issue. It is always good to hear both sides whenever possible. I do see and understand the points you are making, and in the end the FCC may very well say they cannot help, based on exactly what you have provided. But at least I would like the argument to be heard by them, and in the end if nothing else, hopefully they will reword some apparent grey areas of the rule.

jziggity

Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:11 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#16

Post by jziggity » Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:46 pm

So, I don't know if it's proper to gloat in this forum, so I'll try to keep it low key, even though I'm happy as a clam now. I received a voice mail message from TWC yesterday after I left for work. On returning the call this morning, I spoke with someone from a different office (Appleton WI vs. Milwaukee WI) who quickly advised me they were returning my previous pricing. I (of course) had just a couple of follow-up questions about that, the first of which was "Why was this so difficult? I was consistently told over and over, we can't, we won't...." TWC's simple answer was, "We looked into it further, and you were right." It was such a breath of fresh air to hear that.

However I'll probably never know what all went on behind the scenes to get to this point. I did file the FCC complaint online, and I also submitted a trouble ticket with Ceton at Eric's request, so I know they were involved at some level too. There has been a lot of friendly banter on this topic here in this thread, so for all those who participated, please know that I'm not throwing this back in anyone's face (except maybe TWC's). I appreciated the back-and-forth on the issue. I am very pleased to see that the spirit of the FCC rule was followed in the end, regardless of the semantics that may or may not have prevented the eventual literal enforcement of the rule, if it ever got to that point.

Eric, if you were instrumental in pushing this forward in a timely fashion, many, many thank you's!! :clap:

By the numbers, I started out in late November 2012 with a monthly package price of $89.99 (not including taxes/fees). In December I jumped to $193 and some change for returning my 2 cable boxes. I got that reduced to about $122 after some complaining on the phone. And now the final number is approximately $94.20 (AFTER taxes and fees) per month, for the standard Roadrunner internet, digital cable, and digital phone. That's a net swing back and forth of just about $100/month. So, I now have my whole-house DVR solution, which was the goal in the beginning, at the rate that I had been shooting for all along. Hooray!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

User avatar
makryger

Posts: 2132
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Illinois

HTPC Specs: Show details

#17

Post by makryger » Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:01 pm

Glad you got it figured out! the sad part is that there are probably thousands of other customers who dont pay attention to their bills and are being screwed through various accounting tricks. I can't tell you how many times I've had to call up verizon wireless because they've overcharged me. These companies must make millions preying off of peoples lack of responsibility and inattention.
My Channel Logos XL: Get your Guide looking good! ~~~~ TunerSalad: Increase the 4-tuner limit in 7MC

richard1980

Posts: 2623
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:15 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#18

Post by richard1980 » Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:27 am

Don't take this the wrong way. I'm glad you ended up getting the deal you deserve, but I am disappointed in how it happened. I would rather have seen the FCC realize the flaw in the rule and possibly correct it, but now I suspect the FCC will just mark the issue "solved" and move on. This doesn't solve anything. Cable companies are still allowed charge service fees for services that require the operator supplied navigation device even when the customer doesn't have that navigation device. Obviously whether or not a cable company chooses to do that is up to the cable company, but I'd rather have legal protection rather than depend on the cable company being nice enough to give me more than they absolutely have to.

jziggity

Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:11 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#19

Post by jziggity » Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:40 am

Richard - absolutely, I'm right there with you. I am glad it went in my favor. But I'm also not going to contact the FCC to advise them it was resolved. I'm going to let the complaint run its course and see if they contact me. Hopefully they will contact me and I can explain the full details of what happened, including the discussion here. I'm guessing it takes nothing short of an act of god to change or even reword an FCC rule. But again, that which is not sought is seldom found. So I suppose I can at least ask them to clarify the rule - it won't cost me anything extra.

Post Reply