Mediacom Cable's restrictive internet data caps

As a long-time Mediacaom Cable customer (over ten years), I was disgusted to find out last Thursday via a browser injection notice that the company would be instituting data caps for their internet customers beginning September 7th. For the past many years I had been able to save money with Mediacom cable's internet access while still having reasonable fast cable internet speeds. To think that I was paying less than $30.00 per month for high speed internet access was quite the achievement given what some of Mediacom's faster speeds cost per month.

But, as I said, last week that all came to a screeching halt. With the new data cap for my lowest tier plan of 150 GB per month, Mediacom's high speed internet became useless to me. Being a Netflix user, that alone sucks up more than 1/30th of my data, on average, per day. Not to mention moving large files when I am freelancing at home and backing up my own websites and doing other web development work. And forget ever being able to work from home and avoiding my commute with the restrictive data caps in place.

Thus began my search. In the end I went with DSL at an identical speed I was receiving with cable and TV service from Dish Network at a significant savings over Mediacom Cable. What disgusted me the most was the slmost insulting way I was treated by the customer service representative at Mediacom when I called regarding their internet data cap. She offered me a 10% discount for six months on my television service and said the only way to increase my data cap was to pay an additional $20.00 per month to receive a 250 GB monthly data cap. When asked about a free increase to the higher data cap and, thus, a higher speed, her reply was a blunt "I can't do that, every customer is now under the terms of the data cap".

That last ditch effort for Mediacom to redeem themselves and their subsequent failure made my decision minutes later to call Dish Network that much easier. Apparently ten years as a customer, subject to ever-increasing monthly fees and less reliable service means nothing to a nationwide company.

As far as the Mediacom Cable company line goes, "only 3% of our cable internet customers will meet or exceed their data cap thresholds". Why, then, is everyone subjected to a seemingly arbitrary data cap? Why not, instead, address those who have what Mediacom Cable deems to be excessive cable internet usage? Why use fear of exceeding an arbitrary threshold to force customers into purchasing exceedingly expensive internet access packages?

The only logical answer is to avoid people from cutting the cable cord. If people continue to stream content from Amazon, Netflix, Hulu and other sources, cable television providers like Mediacom Cable stand to lose a significant portion of their income from essentially passing along television signals to subscribers. While there is even less overhead and potentially more profit to be made from internet access at any speed, if you can still walk that line where cable internet access is still only slightly less expensive than the bundled cost of TV and internet, traditional cable television providers like Mediacom Cable can continue to have immense profits and have virtual monopolies on service in the communities they "serve". In short, Mediacom Cable will continue to lose customers as they keep instituting restrictive policies like data caps with little notice filled with confusing language while their customer service team scrambles to find the correct answers. For a company who is in the communications industry, they have done a dreadful job of communicating the specifics of a data cap plan for internet access roleld out in relatively short order.

If there was ever a company to avoid, Mediacom Cable is that company.

National broadband internet is actually a good idea

In 2010, the internet is a vital emerging utility service like electricity was in the early to mid-1900s. I've been fortunate enough to be able to both have access to and afford broadband access since 2001 and I viewed it as vital even back then when my only other option was dial-up which seemed slow even then.

Different people will see it differently. To many, internet access has no value but I am increasingly finding those people asking those who do have internet access to "look this up" or "order this for me". Even though they know that they have no need for internet access, they still see its value which speaks volumes to how much the online world has penetrated even those far removed from most types of technology.

If you don't want the government mandating true high speed broadband internet access then I'll assume you're totally cool with paying $55 or more per month for your internet access. Think about the places you could spend even $25 of that expense is costs were to decline. What about reliability? I am unfortunate enough to have Mediacom for my internet access at home and suffered for over 3 weeks with painfully slow access. I didn't even bother wasting my breath calling the mouth-breathers they have employed as customer service representatives and instead, via my painfully slow internet, culled various forums until, after three hours, I found a potential solution. Luckily it worked and my overly spendy internet access is back to its normal speed but what other utility provider would get away with such ineptitude?

Would the local electric company get away with sending you just enough electricity to power your lights at brownout levels? But far too often that's what internet providers get away with. They provide sub-par service because nobody's watching and the competition isn't any better or cheaper. So consumers lose. It took government intervention to provide electrical service to many rural areas so why should we be afraid of the same when it comes to internet access? Either adapt to the change or be happy being left behind.

I think I'll go for anything that provides more reliable, more affordable, faster internet access. It can only help most everything I do including the world's most stunning all-Minnesota photo blog, MinnPics!

The myth of low grocery prices

Every big metro area has that one local grocery store chain that claims to be the low price leader. Their weekly newspaper inserts are loaded with coupons which price conscious shoppers feverishly clip out because a coupon is always a good price. Around the Twin Cities our "low price" grocery chain is Cub Foods. They've been around for about 40 years and from what I can tell began as a warehouse-type store where boxes of products were displayed with one side cut off for access when placed on store shelves. It's a logical way to keep prices low.

However, they aren't the low price leader any more. Sure, their image - using the American Typewriter font - would seem to instantly convey low prices but they just aren't consistently cheap any more. Their ads are still littered with coupons but their new low price model seems to be that of raising the regular price and then marking it down for the sale. The buy one, get one free coupon this week for a 20 oz. package of Gold 'n' Plump boneless, skinless chicken breasts comes to mind. They claim savings of a whopping $6.99! That not only seems artificially inflated but downright insanely high for 1.25 lbs. of chicken. I am fairly confident that, if it weren't for that BOGO special, I could pick up two packages for at least a dollar each less at the local Super Target store.

The puzzling fact is that people still shop at the area Cub Foods store in hordes. They did so after a very nice Rainbow Foods Fresh Store opened across the street. Rainbow's prices were equal to or lower than on most products than at the neighboring Cub Foods store. That just goes to show that either Cub Foods has totally nailed their marketing and branding image or that Minnesotans are very loyal to certain brands.

But how, in the face of decades of successful branding and imaging, does a competitor succeed in winning over new customers? Rainbow Foods is really the only legitimate grocery-only competitor to Cub Foods in the Twin Cities. The services they offer are comparable and so are the prices but Rainbow Foods has fallen flat on their face countless times since entering the market. Their image has been all over the map and they have failed to gain footing on a community organization level (Boy Scouts, youth hockey, etc.) like Cub Foods has done so well. Rainbow has bombed, I think, because their radio ads are flat out pointless and needlessly gimmicky. The Cub radio ads feature real people and mention the specials of the week. This is one case where Rainbow would be better for imitating rather than trying to be original and unique. Grocery customers do not give a damn about unique, they want low prices and Cub Foods mentions their seemingly low prices and those numbers, voiced by a female "interviewing" Cub customers, stick with people far more than a male doing the same because women buy the bulk of a family's groceries.

But you don't have to look cheap to grab customers. Target has a simple, even classy image. They are so successful that years ago Dayton changed the corporate name to Target Corp. Which one of those two names is still around? Target has succeeded by offering not only low prices but a customer experience. The prices are comparable to competitors, the brands are recognizable but they stick out because of their customer service and image. They are the classy discount department store and, I'm guessing, are more successful in the grocery field in the Twin Cities than Rainbow Foods is or ever will be. Still, it pays to shop around so do it and find out for yourself which store gets you the best deal and listen to those radio ads - which ones grab your attention?

If you want something more entertaining, may I suggest the photos of Minnesota at MinnPics. Something fresh and engaging to look at every day.

How not to treat customers

I've wondered somedays as I drive down 169 through Shakopee just how that city can support a whole host of rather large furniture stores (Ashley, Furniture Outlets USA and now Slumberland) essentially across the street from each other. The reason I ponder this is that the city consisting on big-box retailers and townhomes just became home to a Slumberland Furniture store. I have to assume that the quality of the furniture has to be better than that of the now-defunct Wickes Furniture where we bought the bulk of our furniture almost five years ago. Most of that furniture would be better suited for a dumpster but that is another story for another day.

I've scoped out other furniture retailers, hoping to find a better level of quality and customer service for that next big furniture purchase. After reading this recap of a customer service nightmare at the new Shakopee Slumberland I can definitely say that Slumberland is off my list of possibilities. The only dealings I had with them were many years ago in purchasing a coffee table/end table set that thankfully didn't have to be delivered and is holding up wonderfully (unlike that crap from Wickes).

I wish the best for the poor guy who's being taken for a ride through hell by Slumberland but it reminded me with my hellish experience with Home Depot a couple years back. Is it a thing of the past that the customer is always right?