TWC Misleading Customers on Internet Speeds

The NY State Attorney General is troubled by the way Time Warner Cable handles customer service and how their advertised Internet speed don't match up with reality.

Misleading Internet speeds are pretty common and you would almost expect that sort of flim-flam marketing from companies like TWC or Comcast. What concerns me is the almost willful suspension of reality when it comes to so-called Gigabit Cities.

I get about 16-18 Gbps from my Charter connection but my bill says I'm supposed to get 30 Mbps. I'm not too upset about that because I understand contention and my speeds are at least better than 50% of what I'm supposed to be getting. But what about subscribers in FTTH builds who are supposed to be getting "up to 1 Gbps" on their new fiber connection only to top out at 100 Mbps when doing a speed test in the middle of the night and much less when doing a speed test during normal hours?

What's worse and what's more misleading - Charter giving me 18 Mbps from my 30 Mbps connection or getting 100 Mbps or less on a supposed Gigabit connection? There's a pressure on many of these fiber builds to attach the name Gigabit to their build and at the same time set customer expectations that the engineers know are not realistic. I don't agree with the practice and it is becoming way too common.

Cable Bills Explained

The Consumerist has done a very good job breaking down various cable bills from the major providers. Here's their latest - breaking down the Charter cable bill.

Earlier they also broke down the bills from the other major cable companies;

- Comcast

- Time Warner

- DirecTV

Differentiating OTT

I've been meaning to comment on this article about OTT Models for a few days. I've been meaning to comment on it because the basic premise behind the article is wrong - and it seems to be very common mistake people make when describing OTT (over the top) video.

The article seems to assume the models for connected CE and mobile devices are the same. THEY ARE NOT!

A company like Charter may want to have strategic partnerships with Microsoft for their XBox and Apple for Apple TV because those devices could be used to replace existing set top boxes while adding value to the subscriber experience. And if the customer is the one replacing the STB with their own box - even better. In that case Charter saves on both capex and opex costs adding directly to the bottom line. In this case OTT for connected CE makes perfect sense but what about OTT for mobile devices?

If the mobile device is set up as the equivalent of a set top box within the home then yes - it would make sense. In this case Charter would have the added expense of a conditional access / DRM  license for the iPad, tablet or other mobile device but once again they would be eliminating the support of additional set top boxes while at the same time improving the user experience.

But what of a model that calls for a company like Charter to support mobile devices outside the home? How does that model make any sense for Charter? They would not be gaining any advertising revenue from additional eyeballs as that revenue would be going to the content owners. Sure there might be some local ad insertion type opportunity but that depends on whether the content providers would give up enough local avail opportunities to make the costs of authentication worth the while. And if the mobile device is used outside the home then chances are the subscriber would be using someone else's broadband connection to view it. How would that help a company like Charter? It wouldn't!

The models for OTT for a connected CE and mobile devices are two very different things. Very different things.