Los Angeles to sue Time Warner Cable over shoddy service

Far from being the first time Time Warner Cable has upset its subscriber base, the Los Angeles city attorney's office is pulling a Dee Snider and refusing to take the carrier's lackluster service anymore. In a 25-page lawsuit, the city is alleging that the operator "caused major havoc and distress" two years ago when it "failed to live up to its part of the franchise cable agreement requiring that a company answer subscribers' calls within 30 seconds and begin repairs of service interruptions within 24 hours of notification in 90% of its calls for service." The suit claims that no more than 60% of customer calls were answered in time, and cable / internet service was said to be "so intermittent and inferior in quality that it was not much better than no service at all." Not surprisingly, TWC representatives chose not to comment on the whole ordeal, but the outfit could face civil penalties of tens of millions of crisp US dollars in the case. Should've picked up the phone, TWC -- it would've been easier than picking up this tab. [Disclosure: Engadget is part of the Time Warner family]

[Image courtesy of Web 2 Concepts, thanks Scott]

[Flashpoint @ Jun 6th 2008 8:01AM]

GOOD FOR THEM.

and I hope LA wins this.

[andy @ Jun 6th 2008 9:38AM]

Wait, this says "lawsuit".


Aren't we supposed to say, in unison, "damn the money-grubbing lawyers and their frivious lawsuits, and down with the patent system."

[Chuck @ Jun 6th 2008 10:41AM]

I don't. The suing problem in this country is worse than the patent problem. If you don't like Time Warner's service, DON'T BUY IT. They'll upgrade awfully quick when the money stops flowing.

I'm so sick of the sue-happy society.

[wizzle @ Jun 6th 2008 10:43AM]

@andy

this seems less frivolous, and more the exact reason why class action lawsuits exist.

i think it would be great to see more class action against the large infrastructure companies that take advantage of consumers.

[smcallah @ Jun 6th 2008 10:55AM]

Come now, class actions lawsuits benefit only the lawyers.

Customers will get a free month of service or RoadRunner at a discounted rate for 12 months or some crap.

Lawyers will be the only ones seeing the real cash.

And if the City of LA gets any cash from it, what are they going to do with it? Certainly not give it back to tax payers or the customers affected.

[wizzle @ Jun 6th 2008 11:13AM]

i agree with your point that consumers don't get a very good payout compared to the lawyers -- but as long as time-warner gets hit in their pocketbook and it generates some bad press, class action is doing its job.

public perception can go a long way. consider all the class action against big tobacco. while not nearly as egregious, the sooner people realize that they're constantly getting screwed by their cable/mobile/internet providers, the sooner we may start to see some improvement.

my optimistic .02

[Andrew @ Jun 6th 2008 11:44AM]

I went through the Comcast transition to Time Warner here in LA and it went from reliable to 'I hope I have internet today' overnight.

Calling in does nothing more than give you a recording 'we are aware of the situation press whatever if you would like us to call you when service is back in your area' guess what they never call back

Once I even got loud static like someone was blasting distorted music into the phone - called back and the same thing

total crap!

[Aguiluz @ Jun 6th 2008 11:44AM]

Sorry to Post jack but:

[Disclosure: Engadget is part of the Time Warner family]

I hope they don't bring down Engadget. :-(

[andy @ Jun 6th 2008 12:09PM]

Wizzle,

You obviously get it (i.e., understand legal proceedings).

I was just getting the mindless minions all riled up.

[andy @ Jun 6th 2008 12:14PM]

You guys complainging about small payouts don't get it.

The point of class action is that each plaintiff only has a couple hundred, or few thousand (or less) dollars in damages. Why in the world would each of those plaintiffs pay 100k or so to individually sue for 1k bucks? They wouldn't, and the big company continues it's bad practices.

Class actions allow all those little claims to pile up. Once you make the money pile big enough, you'll get a law firm to take the case on speculation that they may at some future point get paid for laying out tons of expenses in the interim.

The point isn't to make each plaintiff rich. The point is to hit the company hard enough in the pocket book that they quick screwing each little plaintiff and get their acts together.


Seriously, I have charter. I don't care if I get a penny from them. But if my service was on every day when I went home, I'd be ecstatic.

[Mobile Phone Diva @ Jun 6th 2008 12:43PM]

Chuck, maybe they are the only option in some areas? You can't always move to another company when you want to.

Maybe the lawsuit will get them to change things ASAP. Sometimes you HAVE to sue to get companies to do anything!! I agree that there are too many unnecessary lawsuits, but there are times when ONLY a lawsuit gets the company's attention. If they're smart, they will just make changes right away and settle before this even gets to court.

[Evan @ Jun 6th 2008 1:58PM]

@Chuck
Don't buy it? They have a monopoly. For many people it's TWC or nothing.

@smcallah
It's not about giving consumers a payout, it's about punishing the company for their wrongdoing.

[Mez Jr @ Jun 6th 2008 1:58PM]

@chuck

The issue with the cable industry is they have a soft monopoly, if you want those channels and you don't want or can't have a dish on your roof you really don't have much choice, some places have FiOS or U-Verse but for the most part you have to choose between sat and cable.
Internet of course has a wider competition base with cable vs DSL but that doesn't always line up.

[Samurai Jack @ Jun 6th 2008 2:12PM]

I think at least some of you are missing the point. This is a straightforward breech of contract lawsuit. When TWC was granted their exclusive monopoly to provide cable and internet services to the City of Los Angeles they agreed to meet certain service levels. The city can prove that TWC failed to meet these service levels. Hence the lawsuit. If TWC isn't forthcoming at least with reparations and improved service I should think their days would be numbered in LA. I'm sure Comcast has their sales folks talking to city council members even now...

[loosely_coupled @ Jun 6th 2008 9:04PM]

@Chuck

Too bad, that's not how it works when these assholes have a FCC-sanctioned monopoly. The United States is one of the only countries with local loop unbundling so that other cable companies can't even compete, just like it is with phone lines/DSL. WHY DO YOU THINK 90% OF AMERICA ONLY HAS THE OPTION OF ONE CABLE CARRIER AND ONE DSL CARRIER. This is a different issue, but the fact remains that if the federal governenment is going to mandate a monopoly, the company damn well better give good service.

I urge everyone on this website to do some research on the pathetic broadband situation in this country and WHY there is no competition ---- and legislated DUOPOLIES of one cable provider and one DSL provider.
Please, do some reading and help take action on this.

John McCain's WHOLE CAMPAIGN is run by Telecommunications lobbyists. You think he won't totally screw all of us Americans when it comes to broadband internet and cellphone carriers. He's already in bed with them.

On the other hand, Barack Obama has spoke forcefully on the topic of internet neutrality and the need to push the FCC to force competition in the marketplace.

Also, go to Arstechnica.com and read their interview with the top democrat on the FCC and what he thinks could happen with a democratic administration in the whitehouse!

[loosely_coupled @ Jun 6th 2008 9:04PM]

@Chuck

Too bad, that's not how it works when these assholes have a FCC-sanctioned monopoly. The United States is one of the only countries with local loop unbundling so that other cable companies can't even compete, just like it is with phone lines/DSL. WHY DO YOU THINK 90% OF AMERICA ONLY HAS THE OPTION OF ONE CABLE CARRIER AND ONE DSL CARRIER. This is a different issue, but the fact remains that if the federal governenment is going to mandate a monopoly, the company damn well better give good service.

I urge everyone on this website to do some research on the pathetic broadband situation in this country and WHY there is no competition ---- and legislated DUOPOLIES of one cable provider and one DSL provider.
Please, do some reading and help take action on this.

John McCain's WHOLE CAMPAIGN is run by Telecommunications lobbyists. You think he won't totally screw all of us Americans when it comes to broadband internet and cellphone carriers. He's already in bed with them.

On the other hand, Barack Obama has spoke forcefully on the topic of internet neutrality and the need to push the FCC to force competition in the marketplace.

Also, go to Arstechnica.com and read their interview with the top democrat on the FCC and what he thinks could happen with a democratic administration in the whitehouse!

[Chuck @ Jun 12th 2008 3:42AM]

Ok. You guys got me, fair and square. I suppose I should have kept my mouth shut not coming from LA. Here we have 3, Time Warner, Comcast (via a local company), and another local.

[Rob K @ Jun 6th 2008 8:16AM]

Where is the so often seen Time Warner disclosure? Engadget, have you freed yourself from the beast.

[Jason @ Jun 6th 2008 8:29AM]

I doubt it, they still haven't said jack about the ridiculous bandwidth caps TWC is not imposing.

[lance @ Jun 6th 2008 8:18AM]

I hope comcast is next

[Jared @ Jun 6th 2008 8:28AM]

then Charter

[Seminole @ Jun 6th 2008 10:31AM]

The absolute WORST company by far has to be Advanced Cable Communications in South Florida. I would kill to have Comcast over them.

[B @ Jun 6th 2008 11:45AM]

I have Charter now and even though it pains me to say this... I miss Comcast. Oh, how I wish Verizon would get their FiOS in this area. There is a plate of cookies and a tall glass of milk waiting for the contractor who installs that fiber to my door.

[Logik @ Jun 7th 2008 4:32AM]

I had Charter in the CA Central Coast for a couple of years, then their internet service quality went downhill. So, I got DSL. But now they have really brought service levels pretty high, so, I have cable again. I have their top-tier 10/1 internet service, and it's great all the time....so far.

[onin @ Jun 6th 2008 8:29AM]

Toronto should do this too: Sue Bell and Rogers.

[Ellianth @ Jun 6th 2008 8:37AM]

I've used both bell and rogers. And in all my time at rogers (like 5 years) i had 2 cable blackouts (for internet) that lasted about 1 hour each. And when I called them they were already aware of the problem and trying to fix it. I'd say that's pretty good.

Bell does need a good suing though. lol.

[konshuss @ Jun 6th 2008 8:50AM]

rogers has imposed download/upload caps that if you are NOT a new customer, you are charged 2.00 per gig(or if you use the Lite service, $5/GB!!!). imagine the people who aren't paying attention or reading the fine print finding out those few extra dvd downloads could cost them more than going out and buying them.

[t3_slider @ Jun 6th 2008 1:20PM]

The only Rogers service I like is their internet, just because it's the fastest and most reliable you can get in my area (and it actually is pretty reliable -- I can't remember the last time the internet went down). However, Rogers as a company blows chunks. Their cell-phone service is the worst in existence (three-year contracts, but your phone breaks. You need to buy a new phone, and they tell you it won't extend your contract. Guess what. They extended the contract.), their cable is ridiculously overpriced, and they keep calling about their stupid home phone, which I don't want and will never get. How can you still charge long-distance using VoIP? It defeats the whole purpose. Furthermore, Rogers thinks it can buy a Toronto landmark (the Skydome) and rename it? Nope, sorry -- still the Skydome in my book.

I *wish* Rogers would get slapped with a lawsuit. They're such a huge monopoly over here (together with Bell) that they can force people into three-year contracts and overcharge everything, while giving no freedom of choice to the consumers. Canada's services are all run by monopolies...it sucks.

[Jason @ Jun 6th 2008 8:30AM]

aaaaaand I meant now imposing.

Proofreading skills FTL.

[Mike @ Jun 6th 2008 8:33AM]

I wish NYC would do the same thing! 2 years ago, I sent a letter to the city describing how TWC here had been working on a problem with intermittent audio and video break-ups I had noticed. This mattered to me for 2 reasons: 1) It was impossible to record any clear-QAM programming via a computer-based DVR as it was creating breaks in the timecode sync in the MPEG-2 transport stream 2) It was really frustrating to have the video go out numerous times during a live sporting event or the audio to go out during an important plot point of a show/movie.

TWC said I should just rent a DVR box for extra $$$ from them (don't even get me started on how hard it was to GET a cable box with FireWire out, I had to FAX THEM the relevant sections of the Telecommunications Act before their lawyers claimed to be aware of the law....), and when I refused and demanded cable service that worked they admitted, after a long battle of trying to prove it was just my setup causing the issue (even though most of my friends throughout NYC have this problem too), that they have known equipment problems at the head end in Manhattan but it will be too expensive to fix it. They'd rather wait for something to completely break and be forced to repair it instead of fixing something that is causing poor service to millions of subscribers.

The city's response was since I cancelled service with them, they had no reason to follow-up on any of my claims and the matter was resolved.... Maybe now that Los Angeles is suing them for millions they'll be more interested.

[Chrisboff @ Jun 6th 2008 8:34AM]

WOW if you live in Los Angeles and like your internet connectivity DONT move to the UK!

If you call your isp in England you practically have to set aside at least half an hour of your time before you can expect an answer. And good luck having your internet fixed in less than a week.

[fourthletter @ Jun 6th 2008 9:30AM]

ADSL sucks ass, I've been with Telewest and now Virgin media for 4 years and never had a problem with my internet. No outages which is probably a good thing as their tech support really sucks ass.

[Galley @ Jun 6th 2008 8:36AM]

Greenville, SC has threatened to dump Charter's sorry ass on several occasions. Despite Charter's failure to improve, they remain the sole cable provider. I personally dumped their sorry ass back in '96.

[Bufsabre @ Jun 6th 2008 8:38AM]

good, can buffalo get in on this, my cable has gone down 3 times since 7am, its only for about 30 seconds at a time, but its still fricken annoying, damn you time warner

[wickedpheonix @ Jun 6th 2008 8:41AM]

Yessss.... get rid of all the cable providers, let the fiber optic goodness come in... :D

[loujob @ Jun 6th 2008 8:45AM]

yea i hope verizon fios gets a contract for all of LA. That would be sweet. Timewarner has been promising me 15 megs for over a year now. And that whole thing about bandwidth limiting. F*** that.

[Distortedloop @ Jun 6th 2008 9:12AM]

Would Verizon get contracts to cover AT&T service areas?

Why should companies be given exclusive coverage area franchises anyways? That's part of the problem with poor customer service. Monopolies aren't going to lose customers to a competitor in these situations, so why focus on customer service?

Granted, the cost of build out on something like laying fiber to every house in the city is enormous, but if Verizon wanted to do it, why prohibit them? Same with AT&T or TWC or any other cable/fiber company. Free market. Let them make their investment and compete for my dollars with the best service and best pricing.

Does AT&T have any kind of fiber plans for the near future anywhere? All I ever read about is Verizon FIOS.

[Amighty @ Jun 6th 2008 8:48AM]

By moving to Brooklyn I had to give up Time Warner for Cablevision... and Cablevision is MUCH worse. Especially the hardware and software - the service is ok, but who cares when channel surfing is such a chore?

[Devilishprune @ Jun 6th 2008 8:50AM]

I'm glad that this is happening, but can North Carolina get in on it? Almost everyday for the past few months my internet has gone out for at least an hour. I've actually....had to find things to do other than surf the web. It's terrible.

[smcallah @ Jun 6th 2008 11:04AM]

Yeah... one off customer issues are not why LA is suing. They are suing because of the amount of customers affected by the same issue.

I live in NC and have had only 2 or 3 outages in the last 6 years I've been a TWC customer. And know many others that don't have issues. Anyone that I know that had an issue it was with the coax in or to their house, that TWC replaced and fixed their issues.

If the issues were more "global" then I'd expect NC or the local cities/counties they serve to be suing.

But to think your issues are what the majority of people experience is just not logical.

Obviously you'll always see people complain more than you see praise for a company. Especially a company that you send $100+ to a month. Who would go out of their way to praise a company for doing what they're paid for? But certainly an individual would complain when they're not getting what they paid for.

[Pete @ Jun 6th 2008 8:56AM]

At least if they lose or settle this case it will give TWC a much needed reason to pass higher costs on to it's subscribers.
Yeah... that'll teach 'em.

[Mobile Phone Diva @ Jun 6th 2008 1:06PM]

Nice sarcasm But how about this? They wouldn't have gotten sued if they had honored the agreement and provided reasonable service!

[Distortedloop @ Jun 6th 2008 9:03AM]

Great, "tens of millions of dollars in fines", which will only be passed on to the paying customers of the TWC service. How does this help the consumers?

I'm not going to defend TWC's behavior from two years ago (yet), if the allegations are accurate, but given Los Angeles' financial situations, I see this more as a money grab for the city budget than consumer protection. Maybe the city will pass the money on to customers of the time as a rebate? Yeah, right.

On to defending TWC. I've had cable at this same address for 22 years. It was Cablevision for several years, and I don't recall when it became TWC, but it's been at least 15 years. In all those years, I've only had one or two brief outages in my service, and the phone service had gotten much better of the last several years, though I don't recall it ever being any worse than calling any other utility in the past. I've called them twice in the past 4 months to *downgrade* my service level. Both times the call was answered within a few rings by a machine, I punched a few menu items and got answered by a live person within a few more rings. The TWC rep was fantastic both times. Polite, responsive, enthusiastic, and helped me save even more money than I had called about (I was cancelling movie channels and she gave me Showtime for a year for free).

Maybe someone should sue the city. Try calling the LA DWP or Sanitation bureau...it takes a very long time to get through. ;-)

[parkeway @ Jun 6th 2008 9:05AM]

Comcast next...please please please...Comcast next....

*crosses fingers*

[Nikonov @ Jun 6th 2008 9:16AM]

Now if only there were other providers in my area... I hate TWC.

[gad get @ Jun 6th 2008 10:10AM]

I love that photo, by the way.

[Marty @ Jun 6th 2008 10:24AM]

A. Someone please use a dictionary and define frivolous. I love how every single lawsuit story must have a person calling it frivolous. Here's why it's not frivolous:
"failed to live up to its part of the franchise cable agreement REQUIRING that a company answer subscribers' calls within 30 seconds and begin repairs of service interruptions within 24 hours of notification in 90% of its calls for service."
For lack of better terms, this is a 'breech-of-contract"-type issue. Warner agreed to a standard they failed to uphold. Hence, they have to pay for their failure. It's not frivolous, it's business.

B. Fuck em. Cable providers been sticking it in consumers' asses for 20+ years. Whether frivolous or not, it's like a child molester getting run over by a car.... no ones has any sympathy. Good for LA.

[smcallah @ Jun 6th 2008 11:10AM]

I think people tend to use frivolous to mean a lawsuit that is asking for obscene amounts of money that will only really benefit the lawyers. And in this case, the City of LA. Even though that is not the definition of frivolous, many people believe that to be a frivolous lawsuit.

And really, if LA wins this money, they're not going to give it back to the customers of TWC that are affected. They're going to use it to cover their overspending. And the cost of the lawsuit will be covered as TWC raises rates, further hurting the consumer, and even increasing LA's money intake as well, since they get a percentage per subscriber under their franchise agreements with TWC in the first place.

The lawsuit should be to force TWC to fix problems and upgrade the network, not to fine them money that will do the end customer no good at all.

[Emre Aydinceren @ Jun 6th 2008 10:38AM]

One word WIMAX... It will end monopoly

[Chuck @ Jun 6th 2008 10:44AM]

The government is doing a good enough job of that already. Ask AT&T