It was the sort of tip that would have made for a great column -- if it were true.
A Los Angeles customer of Time Warner Cable Inc. e-mailed to say he just learned that the company had sneakily inserted new language into its contract allowing it to start charging Internet users higher monthly fees for network-heavy activities such as downloading movies.
I immediately combed through Time Warner's 10,000-word residential service agreement and bingo, there it was: a provision stipulating that increased Net usage "may result in higher monthly charges" or Time Warner imposing "other charges and fees."
I also found mention of Time Warner's contract switcheroo on a number of blogs, including prominent websites such as the Consumerist and GigaOM. Dozens of blog readers had posted angry responses. Outraged tweets were zipping through the Twittersphere.
Problem was, nobody had it right.
"It's not new language," said Patricia Fregoso-Cox, a Time Warner Cable spokeswoman. "We've had this language or similar language in the agreement for several years."
Moreover, she says the company hasn't made any changes to its customer contract since August.
The Time Warner tips, tweets and blog posts illustrate how easily bogus information can be passed off as legitimate online -- and how quickly the brush fire can spread across the electronic ether.
They also highlight the challenge that companies face in putting out such brush fires once they start.
"You can't undo all the damage," said spinmeister Michael Sitrick, whose eponymous L.A. company is a leader in corporate crisis management. "But you can undo a significant amount of damage -- if you move quickly."
The topic of Time Warner playing fast and loose with contract terms was especially tantalizing for me because I wrote in April about the company's plans to experiment with "consumption-based billing" for Net access. I reported how heavy Net users could be charged as much as $150 a month.
A day later, Time Warner Cable's chief executive, Glenn Britt, issued a statement saying the company was backing off from the idea. He said no changes would be made until Time Warner did "everything we can to inform our customers of our plans and have the benefit of their views as part of our testing process."
Nothing else on the subject has been announced since then, Time Warner's Fregoso-Cox said.
