The Libes Libation

Pepco Prolongs

2011-08-21T00:47:00.003-04:00

It's been almost three months since I last posted a description of some of the things that had gone wrong with my thermostats provided through Pepco's Energy Wise Rewards (EWR) program. So where are we now? Still having problems.

I do finally have my two thermostats showing on the Pepco web page. So in theory, I could program them through the web. Alas, the website labels both thermostats "First Floor". While there are secondary user-settable labels, without the correct primary labels, I would have to spend time experimenting to see which thermostat responds and is the real first floor. However, I'd rather Pepco fix their labels - for two reasons: First, because of all the time delays and lack of feedback throughout the system, it's a hassle of unknown duration for me to do the experimenting. For Pepco to do it should be a trivial database update. Second, the lack of proper labels causes problems for Pepco already. When I call Pepco with a problem, Pepco wants to know the identification number of the thermostat. They don't know what thermostat I mean when I say "thermostat on the 2nd floor". So why doesn't Pepco put the identification numbers right there on its own web page?

Since reporting this to Comverge (Pepco's EWR contractor), they have yet to fix it - a change that should be trivial for them. In my most recent phone call, the Comverge representatives finally gave up and told me that they couldn't fix it, that only Pepco could and that I had to place the call. What? Comverge cannot call Pepco? So I called Pepco. That turned out to be a challenge just because Pepco's phone is answered with a phone tree that asks if you want to report an outage, pay a bill, and so on. As far as I could tell, all of these were automated. No choice was offered to reach a person. And none of the choices seemed relevant. Telephone tree hell.

At some point, I figured out that saying "representative" would break through the wall of automation and I was able to speak to a living, breathing human at Pepco. Of course, she started out by telling me to call the EWR number. After I explained that EWR referred me to Pepco, she said she would look into the problem. She also discovered that I hadn't been receiving the promised credits for participating in the program and she would investigate that as well. As long as she was so optimistic, I mentioned another problem I had noticed - that one of the thermostats didn't run the fan in the On position - a useful function when the temp is not high enough to run the AC for extended periods.

At least Pepco has been calling me back. Their most recent phone call informed me that my problems had been escalated. But why tell me this? I don't care what their internal procedures are. Just tell me when it's fixed or give me a date when it will be fixed. Vague assertions are of no value, waste my time, and only tell me that Pepco doesn't see things from the customer viewpoint - if that wasn't already painfully obvious.

So that's where we are now. I have to take time off for yet another appointment this week for a Pepco technician to visit the house, the web page still doesn't explain which thermostat is which, I declined to program the thermostat through its physical interface (as I explained previously), and Pepco still owes me for months of promised rebates.

When will this nonsense end?

Pepco Lowers the Bar

2011-05-30T19:46:00.018-04:00

Many people have asked me why I haven't posted anything recently about Pepco's Energy Wise Rewards (EWR) program. The answer is in two parts: futility and futility.

First, it felt pointless to describe all the things that were going wrong with the EWR program because Pepco has been getting much more pressure over their inability to deliver reliable electricity service. If they can't even do the basics, why bother complaining about anything else? (According to the most recent issue of the Gazette, a new government study found that "Pepco is the worst electric service provider in the region" and performance "has steadily declined since 2004.")

Second, it felt pointless to try and get Pepco to respond to the problems with their EWR program because they apparently have set a very low bar for success. The rest of this post will justify that assertion.

I've had many conversations about the EWR program with Pepco and almost every one of them has included false, inaccurate, or unhelpful information. For example, last year Pepco discovered that the thermostat "could pose a potential fire hazard if the batteries leaked onto printed circuit boards" according to court documents. I received a robocall telling me to remove the batteries from my thermostat and I naturally called Pepco back for more detail. The representative responded that Pepco had made no such calls and I should leave the batteries in.

Later I read in the newspaper that the thermostats Pepco provided were recalled so I'm a bit surprised that Pepco never came around to replace them. Perhaps pulling the batteries is sufficient. But then why are there batteries in the first place? A Pepco representative told me that the only reason for the batteries was so that the thermostat could still display a clock when there is a power outage. People check their thermostats for the time during an outage? Huh? The batteries must be there for some other purpose - presumably to maintain the settings through such a power outage. A Pepco representative assured me that the thermostats hold the settings even without the batteries. However, my own experiments showed that to be a misleading answer because while literally true, without a battery, the thermostat fails to update its clock. So after an outage, the thermostat will continue with the right settings but at the wrong times. Another Pepco representative finally admitted to me that it could take up to 24 hours for the thermostat to get back the correct time.

Pepco continues to install the thermostats and sign people up for the EWR program. A Pepco representative told me that they have changed to a new brand of thermostat but I think the bulk of the problems are with the program and how Pepco administers it, not the thermostat. In fact, what originally sold me on the program was that I wouldn't ever have to deal with my physical thermostat. Sadly, this is not the case.

Recap

These are solely my own comments. You can find other people's experiences in the comments at the end of this post and earlier posts on this blog. I highly recommend perusing the comments.

To recap my own experiences, the first episode should have been an omen. The installer came to my house, installed the hardware and, as he was leaving, I asked if he could verify that the web interface worked. "No, we don't want to have any security problems like seeing your password. Just visit the website after I leave." After he left, I visited the website and found nothing. After a number of phone calls, I found that the web interface wouldn't be available for another 3 months. A lie in a stretch of many lies. (I got jerked around for only 3 months, but I know other people who signed up even earlier. Pepco first claimed the thermostat was web programmable 9 months before it was.)

That meant reprogramming all the settings into the new thermostat from its front panel, not a fun job since the interface requires hundreds of button pushes. It's hard to describe how bad it is. For example, to get to the first day's settings, you press the PGM key 10 times. (No, I am not rounding up.) To raise the temp from its default by 6 degrees requires another 6 button pushes. Now imagine doing stuff like this for each of 4 time periods for 7 days. Double it for heating and cooling. Double it again if you have a 2nd thermostat. (I have a two zone system.) Very painful.

I never did program it because Pepco kept making statements (some of which were forwarded to me by the Maryland PSC) that the internet access was coming "soon". Rather than put up with the physical interface, I just put the thermostat on hold - for 3 months. Now I'm thinking that Pepco owes me the difference comparable to what I would've saved had I stayed with my previous smart thermostats for 3 months. And Pepco owes me another week's worth plus several hours that I had to take off from work. Why? Because it took Pepco that much time to get my thermostats working. Apart from all the web problems, Pepco decided that one of the thermostats was defective (no connectivity) and replaced it. Then they replaced my other thermostat (I'll mention why later).

Web Interface

Pepco did eventually get the web interface running. And it is better than standing in front of the physical thermostat. But not by much.

The web interface shows 8 settings for a single day for a single thermostat. Here's what it looks like. I've trimmed it down to just showing the "heat
mode" so we're just looking at the 4 settings on Monday.

The first problem is that you cannot compare days. That is, you cannot show Monday and Tuesday at the same time because of that "Select a Day" pulldown. The next problem is … oh never mind, I won't go through the rest of it. I will merely summarize that it is outrageously bad design - as if someone wanted to show off their prowess with HTML by having lots of separate form elements, tabs, pulldowns, and so on.

A simple spreadsheet of all the settings in a single table would be much simpler. Indeed, Pepco's own documentation agrees and provides a spreadsheet template. But it's not even an Excel file. It's embedded in a non-editable PDF so all you can do is print it out. The worst kind of spreadsheet (paper) which then has to be laboriously rekeyed into the worst kind of user interface!

Verification

Assuming you get through the web interface, the next question is: How do you verify that it's working? Any changes made through the web interface end with the following popup:

This delay makes verification and debugging a very cumbersome process. After the 5 minute wait, it's made even more cumbersome because there's no short button sequence to check a setting on the physical thermostat. In my case, I use the 7-day settings and I first have to push-button my way through all the other settings I'm not using. And even then, there's no way to be sure that the thermostat is using the right mode (1-day, weekend/weekday, 7-day). The thermostat knows which mode it is in but won't reveal that to the front panel. So there's no way to directly confirm that the web programming worked. Between the delays, the lack of info, and the absurd number of button pushes to do anything, the system is a horror.

The reverse problem exists too. The web page won't show what the settings of the physical thermostat. There's no way to query the thermostat from the web. Of course, that didn't stop a Pepco representative from telling me that the web page does reflect changes at the physical thermostat but he couldn't explain how to do it. Another representative told me it was impossible.

It does seem like the website knows when it is wrong however. I occasionally see the message "Warning! This web page is not synchronized with your thermostat. Please choose your desired settings, then click SAVE to synchronize the settings with your thermostat." So the website is getting data from the thermostat - but not doing anything useful with it.

I called Pepco and asked what was the most expedient way to confirm the thermostat had the right settings. No one to whom I spoke could tell me although they all agreed it was a reasonable request.

I still don't understand the reason for the 5-minute delay in the web interface but surely it's an artificial delay and Pepco can bypass it during testing. So I called and asked: Could Pepco talk directly to the thermostat to confirm it was working? After many phone transfers, I ultimately found that there was one guy at Pepco (to be precise, at a contractor to Pepco) who could actually do such confirmation. During successive phone calls, I was informed that he was out of the office, on vacation, would return my call, etc. I was never able to reach him and he certainly didn't reach me. But what's the point? I don't want to have to call Pepco to confirm my settings. I want to do it myself. Unbelievably frustrating that their interface doesn't allow this.

I've done enough research at this point to realize that the hardware they've deployed supports it; Pepco simply doesn't make it available to the customer. Why not?

Other feedback elements are also missing. Pepco may be able to chart my temp and my energy consumption throughout the day. But they won't let me have it. Instead, their web page shows a generic explanation of my energy use by the month. But since they're not monitoring individual appliances, it's all hypothetical estimates based on a typical homeowner, not me. They had me fill out a survey of the number of TVs, computers, fridges, etc. So that narrows it down. But there is no connection to actual usage.

There are companies that offer products that will do this kind of monitoring for you; But Pepco seems content reporting inaccurate figures on my personal account page that have little relation to reality.

No Way

For now, I'd settle for a way to verify the programming. But according to Pepco representatives, there is no way for me to do it. There is no way to test a variety of potential connectives issues. There's no way to test signal strength. (The thermostat is wireless so if there's an issue with walls or transient problems with your microwave oven, it could be very difficult to solve. There's no way to test their router. (Pepco requires its own router; the thermostat cannot use an IP-style router that is traditionally used for internet service.) There's no way to open a direct connection to the thermostat via telnet or ssh. There's no user port to plug into. It's a black box.

This need for verification is not imagined. Twice I've found the settings in the physical thermostat to be different than what I set them to from the website. Is it a failure of the thermostat? communications glitch? web interface problem? It's impossible for me to find out.

The thermostat gives an indication of when it is communicating but it's just a simple icon on the display saying there is or isn't connectivity but it's unclear whether it's to the web or, more likely, just the router. And it's not even possible to see when the thermostat received its last update.

Of course, I've been told exactly the opposite of many things I've discovered through trial and error. Some of the conversations I've had could have been right out of Kafka. The responses from representatives warmly embrace their own dysfunctional design as if was the most natural thing. And if denying reality or making up info or passing on incorrect info seems helpful, why not?

Unreliable

As if the representatives aren't problem enough, the web interface is unreliable. I already described how ghastly it is - and that's when it's working. But I've encountered too many times when it doesn't work at all. Here are some example screen shots - the first shows that sometimes the site simply becomes unaccessible:

The next shows something strange happening. It comes and goes and I've learned that I can "fix" it by deleting all the pepco cookies in my browser - until it returns some time later:

Yet another problem occurs if you let the thermostat window idle too long. In that case, the session times out. However, it doesn't give an explicit timeout. Rather, after having spent a lot of time updating the configuration and then clicking Save to submit the new settings, the server throws them away and puts up the following screen. And, alas, it doesn't save your settings for when you log back in. In fact, you can't log in - because this login screen goes to some other page that doesn't know anything about you, hence the "Invalid Password" message. You'll get more and more frustrated because you'll never successfully log in to a page that looks like the regular Pepco login page but isn't.

I reported that timeout and bogus login page to a Pepco representative who confirmed the problem and said it appeared to be a maintenance screen that the public was not supposed to see. He said he would make sure it was fixed. That was last year. It's still not fixed 6 months later.

Here's another response I got from the server:

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, you@your.address and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Oracle-Application-Server-10g/10.1.2.4.0 Oracle-HTTP-Server Server at tao.pepcoholdings.biz Port 7777

Ok, I'm getting tired of describing the various bizarre symptoms of an unreliable web service. So I'll switch gears to some lessons learned . . .

Lesson Learned 1

Some of the Pepco thermostats are excessively noisy. Naturally, the one installed in my bedroom was one of these. Why would a digital thermostat make noise? No idea. But every few seconds, it would make clicking and grinding noises. Pepco came to the house, confirmed the noise, and swapped it out with a thermostat that made no noise. Let's hope they don't give my noisy old one to the next customer.

Lesson Learned 2

Guests are guaranteed some interesting times at my house. My parents like to drop in for the holidays and stay over. This requires that I change the settings. It would be useful if there was a way to program alternate settings into the thermostat. Several such alternate settings would be nice. But no, the EWR website doesn't offer this. You have to laboriously revisit 7x4x2x2 settings and then when the parental units leave, you have to laboriously reset everything.

Of course, you could just put the thermostat on hold. Wasteful of energy but easier on the button pushing. The EWR website has a Vacation Mode which lets you set a temp for a given amount of time. The first time I used this, I ran into problems. Since I knew when my parents were leaving my house, I plugged that in as the Stop Date. For the Start Date, I set it for the current time. Well, I tried. The website only deals in half-hour increments so I entered the previous half hour. And promptly got an error:

Now it may seem like common sense that you cannot go back in time but what's the alternative? The website doesn't offer "Now" as a starting time; I was forced to pick a time a half hour later. It's crazy that the system doesn't let you change the temp for an entire half hour. My father watched as I made this discovery. He recommended returning the thermostats.

Lesson Learned 3

Pepco doesn't always answer their phones. And when they do answer their phones, you may not get the service you hope for. Here's a conversation I made notes from this past Memorial Day weekend. I didn't record it but the quotes are pretty close to what was said:

5/26/2011
9:30pm - Called Pepco.
Pepco: "This is after-hours service."
Me: "I need help with my Energy Wise Rewards Thermostat."
Pepco: "That department is closed. Call back tomorrow between 8am and 8pm."
Me: "Wait, you don't have after hours service?"
Pepco: "Yes, this is after-hours service. We handle things like AC or heat not working."
Me: "Well, my AC isn't working!"
Pepco: "Oh, ok, well, let me see if I can find a tech to help you. I'll call you back."

10:23pm Pepco called.
Pepco: "Sorry but all the technicians are busy. Can you call back tomorrow and make an appointment?"
Me: "Well, you're not giving me any other choice, are you?"
Pepco: "No, sorry."

Following day…

5/27/2011
9:32am Called Pepco and described problem.
Pepco: "I know there have been sporadic problems. I will escalate this. Don't be surprised if they're calling you back very shortly."
11:40 I gave up waiting. Left house to go to work.

5/28/2011
6:00am Power out. My uninterruptible power supplies are all beeping so after ten minutes of hoping it will stop, I haul myself out of bed and power everything down.
11:28am After checking with the neighbors, I determine that only my house was out. So I called Pepco and registered an outage with their automated service.
4:00pm Several hours have gone by and I've eaten all the melting ice cream. Called Pepco for an update.
Pepco: "Expect service back by 7pm."
Me: "Thanks."
Pepco: "Have a nice holiday weekend."
Me: "I'll try."
Pepco:

7pm The technician said a squirrel shorted out a high-voltage line at the pole. (The dead squirrel at the base of the pole was a big hint.) He replaced an enormous fuse at the top of the pole and power returned to the house. Total outage: 12 hours. Time for Pepco to respond: 6 hours. Not bad for a single house. However, I'm still amazed that our electricity infrastructure is so fragile that a mere squirrel can bring it down.

As I write this, it's been a week and, although power is just fine, the website is still not allowing me to program my 2nd floor thermostat. So today, I called Pepco and asked what's going on.

After battling through their phone tree once again (and why does it have to ask me twice in Spanish to push numero uno at different levels in the tree?), I finally reached a representative who put me on hold for 15 minutes and then told me that Deea would speak to me now.

Deea:

Ok, so Deea wasn't there. I hung up, redialed, went through it all over again and finally insisted the representative hear both my voice and Deea's voice at the same time before clicking off. Thankfully, she got us both on the telephone.

I described the problem.

Deea: "Our records indicate that your 2nd thermostat was removed in October of 2010."
Me: "Yes, because it was defective. And you installed a replacement thermostat."
Deea: "Not according to our records."
Me: "So can you fix your records?"
Deea: "Are you calling from home?"
Me: "No."
Deea: "Ok, then let's send a tech out to your house."
Me: "Why? You just need to fix your records."
Deea: "We need to get the # of the thermostat. That's why I asked if you were calling from home."
Me: "No problem. When I go home this evening, I'll call it in."
Deea: "That won't work. The office closes shortly. However, the technician can call it in because he doesn't have to through the office."
Me: "So the tech works later than the office?"
Deea: "Yes. The office closes at 5pm. The techs work till 9pm. Otherwise, you'll have to wait until Monday."
Me: "Ok, send the technician."
Deea: "What time is good?"
Me: "8pm."
Deea: "Ok, 8pm. The tech will call your home phone 15 minutes before arrival."
Me: "Ok."

We had this conversation around 4pm. I was home by 7pm. By 9pm, no one had showed. I checked my email and voice mail. Sure enough, I had received a call at 5:30pm.

Technician: "I'll be there in 15 minutes."

To make this clear, a Pepco representative had assured me a technician would show up at a specific time. I was there an hour early but the technician was there 2 hours early. He didn't wait. And all for the unnecessary reason that Pepco wanted to send a person out to read some numbers because 1) they couldn't keep track of their own records for work they had done and 2) their offices are open at different times then their technicians work.

<Insert scream here.>

Conclusion

Although I've hung in with Pepco on this Energy Wise Rewards program for a long time, I'm run out of patience. Pepco isn't giving this program the support that it needs. It's just not a priority for Pepco no matter what it claims to the contrary.

Thus, I strongly recommend customers considering the Energy Wise Rewards program to avoid it at all costs. While there is a financial reward tied to participation, it clearly is not worth it. And while the internet programming feature is attractive, I suspect that an independent provider would offer better support and better experience. Please let me know in the comments area if you've experimented with any other solutions for remote thermostat monitoring and control and whether or not you are satisfied.

PS: As of 6/4/2011, my 2nd floor thermostat is still inaccessible from the Pepco website. The thermostat remains on hold.

Advice Wanted

2010-06-25T23:51:00.010-04:00

Interested in serving on the CCAC of Montgomery County, MD? There's an opening and you have until July 9 to apply.

If you're not familiar with the Cable and Communications Advisory Committee, it advises the County Executive and Council on cable and telecommunications issues. This includes cable TV franchises, PEGs, and maybe even internet thermostats (sigh).

If you are selected, your first task can be to get the committee's online records up-to-date. Their records haven't been updated for three months.

Here is a link to the current members of the committee. Mmm, perhaps I should say last known members, since that page is likely out-of-date as well.

In theory anyway, these are your representatives. Feel free to contact them to ask what their experience serving on the committee is like. Or ask them about communication-related issues of concern to you. Oh, you can't figure out how to contact them? Their names aren't linked to an email address? There's no phone number? How about that! (Your second task: Make the members more accessible to the citizens who they are supposed to represent!)

PS: I couldn't get the web page (above) for the PEGs to respond either. It is the correct link though. One more thing for you to look into.

Pepco Ignores

2010-06-13T01:09:00.007-04:00

Since my earlier post about Pepco's Energy Wise program, many people have emailed me with stories similar to mine. The only difference is that some are even worse.

Here are some of the additional complaints:

Thermostats not working, even from the front panel.

Thermostats not installed correctly.

Thermostats making frequent clicking noises.

Full manuals for thermostats unavailable.

That's apart from my earlier complaints:

Installers shortened wires unnecessarily.

Installers used wrong tools.

Installers showed up late.

Website control is unavailable.

Website requires another browser.

Thermostat needs an additional router port.

After repeated calls to Pepco, I was able to speak to the manager of the thermostat installations, Craig Snedeker. If this name is not familiar to you, you may like to read some of my posts about Comcast. Here's an excerpt from Comcast Blasts Holes In Itself in 2004:

Comcast GM Craig Snedeker was brought in last year [2003] to fix all the problems in MC MD, yet there is little evidence of him doing so. Complaint levels are higher than ever (3x last year's!) and communication between the county and Comcast appears to be broken, much like the "walled garden" in which Comcast placed my cable modem a few weeks back for no reason at all.

Comcast is a powerful company with real strengths. Yet they appear to be throwing it all away. The blame-Verizon strategy isn't working. Comcast had a huge advantage as the de facto monopoly in MC. But if they keep running their system into the ground, it's hard to imagine why customers will continue to put up with their abusive service.

Craig resigned in 2005, at which time I wrote another post. An excerpt:

The most senior official in charge of Comcast in Montgomery County has resigned. After only 2 years on the job, General Manager and VP Craig Snedeker resigned for "personal" reasons according to company spokesman Jim Gorden in this week's Gazette.

Why Am I Not Surprised

Snedeker arrived on the heels of the disasterous period 2 years ago when performance was so bad that the county flexed its muscle by establishing cable modem regulations and further extending regulations for all customers (both HSI and TV) with the creation of the Cable Compliance Commission. This had to have been a huge wakeup call to Comcast Corporate. God forbid, other franchises should follow MC's lead.

So Comcast dumped the GM at the time (Sue Reinhold) and brought in GM-extraordinaire Snedeker. What did he do? Well, a few things did improve such as adding redundant hardware in places. But as far as I could tell, customer service was a non-priority while the company aimed at higher-margin products, specifically, the high-end video products such as digital TV and HDTV. Apart from that emphasis on higher profit, Snedeker spent time rubbing elbows with politicos and continuing Comcast's tradition of corporate largesse to pacify community groups - but what about the customers? You guessed it - plenty of customers have continued to be unhappy with Comcast service.

Complaint levels filed with county regulators are now higher than we've ever seen. Part of this is no doubt due to Verizon installers inadvertently cutting Comcast lines. But, as I personally testified at a county hearing last month, many complaints could not possibly be the cause of Verizon. Comcast must shoulder the blame. I don't know if Comcast has been cutting costs on training or squeezing out money elsewhere, but quality seems to be disappearing as well. And with that go the customers.

Back to the Present

I'm not blaming Pepco's problems solely on Craig here. Clearly Pepco has plenty of blame to spread around. Yet no one I spoke to at Pepco seemed to think their behavior was a problem. And although each representative was happy to give me their supervisor's name and number, none of the representatives was willing to take any action personally.

I can thank Craig for one thing. He gave me the person at Pepco to whom he reports. He said Avolon Joseph is in charge of the project. A search on the web turned up her title as Manager of Strategic Planning & Initiatives.

So I called Avalon and left a message with my phone number and email address. Perhaps she was on vacation so I waited a few days. And a few days more. After a week and half, I called again. This time I reached her in person:

Me: Can I ask you some questions about Energy Wise program?

Avolon: Yes but I'm in a meeting right now. Can I call you right back?

Me: Yes.

Avolon: Ok.

Me: Bye.

Avolon: Bye.

If you're expecting more, you'll be disappointed. I waited for the rest of the day. The rest of the week. And the following week.

At this point, I feel totally frustrated. I've already filed a complaint with the MD Public Service Commission. No word back from them either. I attached the earlier blog post to it. I'm thinking that I'll attach this one to an additional complaint.

In addition, I gave Craig the URL to the blog so he could read it himself. Doubtless he won't be pleased but perhaps he will take some action.

As for Avolon: You may choose not to return my calls but you are making for very unhappy customers. And just like any service provider, we will look for all possible ways to avoid dealing with bad ones. I've already switched my electricity generation and transmission services to a competitor. And I encourage others to switch, to file complaints with the MD PSC, and to testify at hearings involving Pepco services. You leave customers no other choice.

Energy Unwise

2010-05-23T16:55:00.005-04:00

Amidst the blizzard of advertising I receive each week for Verizon FIOS, I have also been receiving ads from Pepco for their Energy Wise Rewards program.

If you live in Montgomery County, Maryland, you've probably been getting these letters, too. Part of Pepco's offer is for a free internet-capable thermostat. Yes, free. Free installation and free service, too. Gosh, it's hard to ignore free service. I'm used to anything to do with my heat pump either requiring a $100 minimum service call or me spending oodles of time staring at my current programmable thermostat which tells me everything but why the heating system isn't doing what the thermostat says it is.

Why would Pepco make this offer? Remember that Pepco sold off their generation facilities so now they have to buy electricity. My bet is that Pepco has a sliding scale determining how much they pay for energy. Anything over a certain amount costs Pepco significantly more than it is able to charge its customers (who buy electricity at a fixed rate). So Pepco wants to sell us lots of energy but not too much.

How does Pepco plan to get customers to consume less? Rather than using rebates to encourage voluntary conservation as other jurisdictions are doing, Pepco is offering to be a bit more heavy-handed with rebates. The thermostats Pepco provide have a remote cutoff so Pepco can turn off customer AC or heat pumps remotely during periods of high energy use. This is fine for people who don't work at home during the middle of the day - exactly when Pepco is likely to cut the AC. Pepco assured me that it happens very rarely and there are ways to override the cutoff in the rare event that it is necessary. It all sounded good to me.

Long-time Washingtonians may recall Pepco's Kilowatchers program. Pepco installed radio-controlled cutoffs on major electrical appliances in the home. For reasons unknown to me, Pepco suspended Kilowatchers many years ago. But the essence is reborn in the Energy Wise program. And if you don't want Pepco messing with your thermostat, Pepco will happily put an old-style dumb cutoff on your AC or heat pump. You don't even have to be home. Pepco says that reason alone explains why most people are opting for the dumb cutoff over the internet thermostat.

But I liked the idea of the internet thermostat. Pepco promised better energy statistics, better usability (imagine having the house at the right temp upon getting back from vacation and yet saving money at the same time), and more. The best part was the idea of sitting at my desk and being able to see a week's worth of thermostat settings at a glance. That sounds so much better than what I have to do now - manually push buttons to see 4 settings x 7 days x 2 seasons! Besides the 56 different periods, each period can then require many button presses to adjust the temp and time. So we're talking a couple hundred button clicks! Ack! Admittedly, my thermostat lets me copy days that have a common schedule - but my family's schedule is different almost every day of the week so I cannot use that feature very much.

By comparison, Pepco representatives repeatedly told me that the web interface would show a simple list that would be simple. Simple. Simple. Simple. How hard could it be to screw this up? Even a simple spreadsheet would be easier than all those damn button clicks required by a physical thermostat.

So after contemplating this for awhile (and throwing away many months worth of Pepco mailings), I finally made the call. Sign me up!

Pepco Shows . . . Late

I accepted an appointment for Tuesday morning. I was told that I could have a window from 8am-11am. You can probably guess where this is going.

I took the whole morning off from work. At 10:30am, I started to worry and called Pepco. The representative assured me that the technician merely needed to arrive inside the window and could complete the work outside the window. I sure wasn't told anything like that when I originally set up the appointment. Sure enough, the technician and showed up at 11:00am. Grrr.

The technician brought along a trainee to watch and assist. So I asked if I could watch too. No problem, I was told.

First, the technician installed a wireless networking device on my router. To control the thermostat, Pepco uses a home-area network system called Zigbee. The Zigbee controller is an Ethernet device that is supposed to plug in to the homeowner's router. And although I have a router, it didn't have a spare port. Why didn't Pepco tell me about this in advance? I had assumed the thermostat would be a WiFi device. Alas no. So I temporarily unplugged something else from my router in order to plug in the Zigbee and get the thermostat working. My advice to others: Customers without spare ports should ask Pepco in advance whether they need to buy an Ethernet hub or Pepco will provide one.

I have two heat pumps with separate thermostats so the technician replaced my thermostats with two new ones. I was a little annoyed that he clipped off the wires rather than unscrewed them. There's not a lot of slack left in my thermostat cables. It would only have taken another minute to unscrew them. But I had already pointed out that he was using the wrong kind of screwdriver to remove the old thermostat from the wall. Nor did he have a wire stripper. Why don't these guys come with the right tools? The hell with professionalism. I could not believe this guy was training people. In the interest of expediency, I kept my mouth shut.

When he was done, I asked him to show me Pepco's website to control the thermostats. "We leave homeowners to do that on their own." He made reference to people not being comfortable with Pepco personnel knowing their password. That made no sense - after all, it's Pepco's system. Pepco has complete control over it. It hardly matters that whether Pepco personnel know my password or not - Pepco can still control my thermostat. I pressed him on this and finally he said he just didn't have the time - he had other appointments. Since he showed up late for mine, I could hardly argue with him over that point. Although both thermostats were turned off, I let him go.

At The Computer

I surfed over to the url he had given me to register an account at pepco.com/rewards. Forgive me if I drag you through the details but I must. They deserve a thorough airing if only to show website designers what to avoid.

The website starting by asking me for 3 pieces of personal information. Let's call it pseudo-information because it was all from my monthly statement. How stupid - if you open someone's mailbox and take their bill, you have all the personal information needed to masquerade as them! If you're going to get all the information from a bill, it doesn't matter whether you ask for 3 pieces of information or 100.

Next, Pepco required completion of a captcha (distorted bits of text you are required to type in). Captcha's don't identify people - they merely prove it's not a robot filling out the form. But that's pointless given that the form just asked for information that could only have come from one person's statement. Whoever decided on their security measures didn't know the basics. Or was overridden by bad corporate policy.

The next web page asked for really personal information just in case I forgot my password in the future. No doubt you've encountered this before. I was presented with a choice of things like mother's maiden name, name of first pet, and so on. This design is a disaster. By insisting on information that only you know, it immediately becomes information that not only you know. Because now Pepco knows it. And since these same questions are used for password recovery by many financial institutions, access to your money and identity has been granted yet another way to be compromised.

Sadly, I have found that people really do see my personal information. My most convincing encounter with this reality came when I was telecommuting one day and found that my password wasn't working. I phoned the computer support staff at my own place of employment and they proceeded to ask me my personal questions, listen to my answers, and confirm the answers matched those on file. In other words, other people were seeing things that only I should know. Fortunately, I had planned ahead and read back the answers I had given years earlier. The name of my elementary school: a. My first pet's name: ab. My favorite sport: abc. And so on.

You may not like my solution. You may complain that it's impossible to memorize and recall this information if it's completely artificial. Correct. But it's a fair tradeoff for true security (not to mention personal privacy). And even if you answer the questions seriously, recalling the correct answers may be difficult. Consider that one of Pepco's security questions was "What is the earliest phone number you can remember?" The problem with this kind of question is that it is likely to change over time. It is a near certainty that there will come a time when my answer is different. Memory fades after all. In fact, many of the questions were of that type. Favorite fruit? Favorite color? And so on. How many people have the same favorites for the rest of their lives? (The alternative is to ask questions of fact but that has problems, too, as Sarah Palin found out when her yahoo account was compromised thanks to questions easily answered from her Wikipedia page.)

Sorry for that digression but I've never read a thorough explanation of all the problems with this type of password recovery system so I thought I'd put it down for the record. I resisted sharing it with the Pepco representative even though, by this time, I had already phoned Pepco for help. In fact, I called earlier, having failed at the first step - getting the pseudo-personal info from my statement. Evidently, my statement didn't square with their view of it.

The representative was happy to stay on the line as I completed the remainder of the page, the next page, and so on. Finally, I got to the fifth and last page. Whew! But instead of a welcome screen, I got: The system is unable to process your request at this time. Please contact a Pepco representative if you continue to have trouble.

Since I was already on the phone with just such a representative, contacting one was a snap. (The first thing that went easily that day.) She couldn't explained what had gone wrong but decided it was because I was using the wrong browser. ("We don't support Safari or Chrome.") I doubted that was an issue because the pages were just simple forms and, after all, I had successfully completed four of them. The diagnostic smelled to me like an issue on their end.

However, a quick look at the source showed me that their service was Microsoft-based so, yes, compatibility could be an issue. She told me to use Internet Explorer. I told her "I'm on a Mac; there is no IE for MacOS." She then assured me that Firefox was supported. So I went through their signup pages again. Again: There is a problem with the system. Please contact a Pepco representative for assistance.

This may not have been the exact message (I didn't bother to copy it down) but it was definitely different than the previous one. (What's the point of more than one type of uselessly vague error messages?)

At this point, the Pepco representative did something on her end and I was able to log in. Only to be showered with new forms. The system wanted me to fill out a detailed questionnaire regarding my house - size, construction, windows, etc. After getting out of this rat's nest, the representative told me how to get to the page to pay your bill and set up Auto Bill Pay.

Me: But I don't want to pay my bill or set up Auto Bill Pay!

Pepco 1: You don't? Isn't that why you called?

Me: I called so I could get access to my Pepco-provided internet thermostat.

Pepco 1: Oh, you want a different number.

Me: Are you sure? I dialed the number I was given and got to you.

Pepco 1: Yes, I'm sure.

Me: Ok, what's the number.

Pepco 1: 866 353-5798

Me: That's the number I dialed to get you. Please transfer me - don't make me call a number that will bring me right back to you.

Pepco 1: Uh, hold on.

Finally, I was transferred to a different person:

Pepco 2: What can I do for you, sir?

Me: I'd like to know how to access my Pepco-provided internet thermostat.

Pepco 2: I'd be happy to redirect you to a person who can take your request to have a thermostat installed.

It took a while but finally I convinced her that I already had the thermostat installed and just needed the url to the page to control it. She then broke the bad news. "That feature is not available yet."

How Could This Be

I'll skip the lengthy discussion that ensued. Suffice to say, after I was certain that she had to be confused or misinformed, I spoke to her supervisor, Dave Boyer, who explained that the functionality was still being tested by Pepco employees who had the thermostat in their homes.

What? How could this be? Wasn't it tested before being advertised? And hadn't it been advertised for months? (I have an email pointing out that it was advertised to be available in the summer of 2009!) The supervisor had no good explanation.

He didn't understand why I was unhappy, so I explained about the hundreds of button pushes that would be required to program the new thermostat. (Wait, multiply by two because I have two of them!) And I would have to learn how to use the thermostat - a thermostat with a tiny screen and just a few buttons, each overloaded with lots of modes and functions. Ugh. All in all, an experience I really didn't want. And certainly not the one I had been promised.

The supervisor offered to send out a technician to uninstall the new thermostats and reinstall the old ones - no charge. I thanked him for the offer while pointing out that based on my past experience, it would require me to sacrifice another half day off from work to do the reinstall and possibly another half day to re-reinstall the new one. He said that the technician could call me at work so that I could leave in time to meet him at my house - and that this courtesy was always available. But why wasn't I told this before?

I also expressed my displeasure over a number of other things - such as the way the program was advertised. Had I known Pepco was not ready, I would have waited. Pepco shouldn't have advertised at all. At the very least, Pepco should have explained the true state of the customer experience. Before signing up originally, I spoke to a Pepco rep who very clearly extolled how easy it was to use the system. How could this be if it wasn't even available? I asked the supervisor whether he had one of the Pepco thermostats. Answer: No. "Not available in my area."

I told the supervisor that I now faced a decision. Should I make another appointment for a Pepco technician to come reinstall my old thermostat? Or should I wait for Pepco to finish their testing betting that the outdoor temp wouldn't get too cold or too hot in the meantime. I asked the supervisor when the web interface would be available. He thought sometime in June. I asked him to find the person who knew for sure - surely someone must be in charge there - and get a real answer.

After placing me on hold for awhile, the supervisor came back on the phone and admitted that he couldn't get hold of the project manager but that the manager was due to show up in two days and he would get me a clear answer then. (What? No one can get a hold of the project manager for two days?) That was five days ago. I have not received any word from anyone at Pepco since.

At this point, I've filed a complaint with the Maryland Public Service Commission which regulates Pepco.

Needless to say, Pepco needs to do more than just testing. It needs to fix: its web interfaces, its privacy and security practices, its installation practices, its advertising, and finally, how it communicates with customers. If customers are so badly misled, Pepco shouldn't expect customers to sign up for its programs, no matter how good they turn out be.

Indeed, I related this story to several people and each one had a Pepco tale of woe. One of my friends said that he filed a complaint with the MD PSC last year about the same program. It seems that Pepco had advertised the program would be available last summer and it wasn't available. I've also found Pepco's blog which has lots of people complaining about the web billing system. I am experienced enough to avoid Auto Bill Pay systems but how naive was I to have signed up for the internet thermostat?

Several of the people I spoke to asked why I would trust Pepco to have control over my thermostat. Now I'm wondering what could I have been thinking when I agreed to this.

More importantly, my house is cold.

Phone Tax Increase

2010-05-17T13:11:00.005-04:00

Faced with close to a billion dollar shortfall (and continuing deficits for years to come), Montgomery County, Maryland is struggling with tax hikes and service cuts. I won't summarize all the cuts and tax hikes but I will mention one that falls in the area of interest to readers of this blog.

The county council is considering a resolution to increase the county tax on telephones from $2 to $3. That's per phone - so total up your family's cell phones and your house phone and multiply by 3 to get the amount you'll be paying to MC (Montgomery County). If we're lucky, they won't raise it even higher.

Oh, also add MC's 911 tax. That's another .75 per phone. At least, that's what I see on my bill.

On My Bill

I threw in the on my bill in the previous sentence because I wouldn't be surprised if you see something different on your bill. Indeed, I don't see the $2 charge on my bill although I do see the 911 charge. And one of my neighbors tells me that his MC 911 charge is $1. Is my phone provider doing the computation incorrectly? Or are the computations just maddeningly complex?

I wouldn't be surprised if complexity is an issue. For instance, my phone is VOIP and although I have an MC billing address, the actual phone number doesn't look like an MC number. But I made sure that the 911 service is working so perhaps how MCness is determined depends on which department is doing the determining. Another neighbor of mine notes that she has a 202 (Washington DC) number with a Montgomery County billing address that is assessed the $2 tax so there's yet another explanation needed.

Yet another scenario is exhibited with my cell phone. It has a NJ number with a NJ billing address but the phone stays in MC 99% of the time. Although the phone company knows this, I am not assessed the $2 tax.

And, of course, I use Skype and other free video services. Needless to say, I don't pay the $2 for Skype.

How are we supposed to deal with this morass? More specifically, how can we know which tax computations are correct? How can we predict how this pending resolution may actually affect us if we cannot even understand the current implementation?

Justified

So back to the original issue. Is MC justified in increasing the tax? The county could have offered a rationale. For instance, regulation costs more than it used to. But that's not what the council staff notes say. And they also don't say that MC collects taxes for telephone service in other ways, such as charging for access to rights of way or charging other business taxes. In fact, no rationale whatsoever is offered.

Surely, the real reason is that MC needs more revenue and they've figured out that this tax is one to which people are relatively insensitive. I would argue both of these points. (I'll skip the first point - surely it goes without saying that MC has many unnecessary expenditures.)

The real reason people seem insensitive to telephone taxes is more likely that few people understand their phone bills. They are laden with taxes from various levels of government (local, state, and federal taxes appear on mine) as well as charges from telephone providers that aren't taxes but are designed to sound like they are so customers won't question them. The regulatory cost recovery charge and administrative charges that appear on my Verizon Wireless bill are good examples of such, uh, taxes. [Although phone providers are careful not to use the word tax on any of their charges, the government is fairly loose with how they use tax, fee, and surcharge. For simplicity here, I'm calling all these extras taxes.]

So, in my view, the phone companies and government(s) are doing exactly the same thing (taking advantage of telephone users), albeit in different ways.

What To Do

I suspect it is fruitless to complain to the council. But I encourage you to do it anyway. If enough people do so, it may make a difference. The council will be holding a hearing on Tuesday May 18 before the regular meeting of the MFP committee. [How to give public testimony.]

Or you can do what I did the last time the council raised the phone tax. I switched my service to a jurisdiction with a lower taxes. It is surprising that taxes vary widely between jurisdictions. MC is far from being the lowest. But it is also far from being the highest.

I mentioned earlier having a NJ cell phone. That was a no brainer - since I have some relatives in NJ, I simply asked if I could piggyback on their family plan. I checked with Verizon Wireless as well and they had no problem with the phone being out of the area.

I ultimately reduced my payments to Verizon significantly and my payments to MC went to zero. Having an out-of-state area code doesn't seem to be the problem that it might have been a decade ago. Now, most people have plans where interstate calls cost the same as local calls. So for the phone on my family plan, I pay $12.99 for wireless access. That includes all taxes and fees.

I also transferred my landline to VOIP. This also reduced my payments to MC and my payments to Verizon went to zero. For VOIP, I pay $18.07. That includes all taxes and fees.

If you do write that letter to the council, mention that higher taxes will be counterproductive - and that you intend to transfer your phone service to a jurisdiction with lower telephone taxes. The county predicts they're going to reap a windfall of $11.85 million from higher taxes. But they're going to have to do it without us.

Cut CCM

2009-10-23T04:53:00.007-04:00

On the Maryland Politics Watch blog, Adam Pagnucco has posted an essay in response to our elected leaders asking what can be cut from the Montgomery County budget. Adam's suggestion: Cut County Cable Montgomery.

According to viewership numbers, very few people watch CCM. Since so few people watch it, I have to assume most readers of this blog don't even know what it is I will provide an explanation. In a nutshell, CCM is the C-SPAN of Montgomery County. CCM provides live coverage of council sessions, press conferences, and public affairs programming. CCM is delivered as a cable channel and many shows are available from the county website or youtube.

Adam observes that the CCM budget has grown substantially: 16.9% in FY07, 13.9% in FY08, and an amazing 22.9% in FY09. That is breathtaking, especially considering the cuts that have taken place elsewhere in the budget.

Adam's explanation about the CCM program and its budget growth? Incumbent protection. Adam explains:

All too many of these programs seem to have a common primary purpose: making the incumbent office holders look good. Over and over again, politicians are shown prancing at press conferences, smiling to their adoring admirers and explaining why Montgomery County is such a wonderful place to live – under their leadership, of course. County Report, CCM’s flagship weekly program, is little more than a parade of such political frolicking.

I won't repeat Adam's other observations but I encourage you to read his essay. I agree with most of his points. However ...

It is important to understand that the CCM is not funded out of the county's general revenues. Rather, CCM is part of a separate budget (the "cable communications plan") that is funded primarily by franchise fees which are paid by everyone subscribing to cable TV. Pull out your bill and take a look. It may seem small on your bill (well, maybe not) but it adds up. The current budget calls for franchise fees of roughly $10.6 million. Revenues from some smaller sources bring the total income to $15.8 million for all things cable.

The cable revenues are not to be used for items outside the cable budget (although the county has been known to borrow from it occasionally). But the bottom line is that cutting CCM is not a useful response when our elected leaders ask what we would sacrifice to help balance the budget.

That said, cutting CCM might be useful for a number of other reasons. For example, our political leaders have better things to do with their time than do interviews that are watched by almost no one. The FY09 CCM budget is roughly $2.5 million. Of that, the Public Information Office (the source of the most pointless of such shows) is $720 thousand, about 29% of the CCM budget. (Would it be too much to ask that some of that be used to make CCM work on Apple Macs?)

In my opinion, many of the other shows produced by or distributed on CCM are also of little value. Most of them are just filler between county council sessions. What is missing is more valuable video such as council work sessions and committee and commission meetings. These videos would provide citizens with a much more useful understanding of what the county government does than pablum produced by a public information office. (Note that the county has an even larger budget for "public information" that does come from general revenues. And which should also be cut.)

In the past, I have recommended that we give up the channel entirely (presumably getting something valuable in return) and instead provide streams and archives over the web for the videos that are truly vital to informing the citizenry of their government. I recommend that for most of the channels in the PEG network.

As I write this, I have turned on CCM to see what is being broadcast. It's Councilmember Nancy Floreen holding her dog and talking about her family ("Lady is a rescue schnoodle ...") and showing family photos of her travels around the world. Very entertaining. But how is this a justifiable use of taxpayer funds?

Note: The county will deny that franchise fees are a tax. Call them what you will.

Strange Sense of Security

2009-08-20T02:34:00.007-04:00

MCPS recently announced it wants a security system for the elementary schools. RFP (Request for Proposals) 4248.1 "Elementary Schools Access Control Systems" is publicly available at the Parents Coalition web site in an article by Louis Wilen.

http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2009/08/mcps-releases-rfp-for-super-security.html

I decided I'd have a look. What I found was astonishing.

The RFP starts out reasonably. The request sketches out the idea of doors that use access-control cards. As a past elementary-school parent myself, I could see this makes sense for school staff who are regularly going in and out. The kids themselves don't need access cards because they're only using the doors during brief periods (i.e., school day begins, recess, etc.) when an adult is stationed at the door.

But after hours, I would regularly encounter doors propped open with a rock or chair so that parents could enter. And sometimes I would encounter a locked door and a crowd of angry parents banging on the door, unsuccessfully trying to raise the attention of a school staffer.

The MCPS proposal provides for cameras so conceivably a parent could get the attention of someone in the office to have the door opened remotely. Indeed, the cameras could be viewed offsite so it wouldn't even be necessary to have someone watching them in the school itself. They could be viewed at MCPS HQ or anywhere on the internet.

Sounds good so far. So what's the problem?

The Problem

For starters, there's a lot in the RFP that's unnecessary. Consider this section:

2.2.4.m The EAC/SMS System shall have a fully integrated Environment Security Module (ESM) with the capability of detection and identification of toxic gases, Chemical Warfare Agents including Soman, Sarin, VX, Mustard, and Lewisite. The Environmental Security Module shall include a suite of sensors integrated with the EAC/SMS System capable of detecting over 1,000 chemical and gas compounds with ...

Is this for real? Since when do we need chemical warfare detection systems in our elementary schools? (Answer: We don't.)

I'm thinking that this RFP was written with the idea of applying for grant support from some federal security program. That seems to be the way half of these new security policies are justified these days - because there's money waiting for them. (The other half? Hyperbole-driven paranoia.)

Speaking of paranoia, how come there are no metal detectors? How is the system supposed to stop people entering with guns? Knives? (Atomic weapons?) How are we supposed to sleep at night? Seriously - why such a weird focus?

Next Problem

Another class of problem is that the specs are a hodgepodge. Plenty of the requirements have no thought to functionality but dwell obsessively on irrelevant technical detail. For example:

3.6 ... shall incorporate a 32-bit 100 MHz RISC processor ...

Besides the unnecessary use of the vague term RISC, why would someone specify a maximum speed? Normally, if you have a specific processor in mind, you'd say 100 MHz or faster but this spec means faster chips aren't acceptable. That's absurd. But realistically, so is the idea of even giving processor speeds for a security system. Function is what counts, not processor speed. An example of a functional spec: System must recognize a face 95% of the time within 2 seconds. Who cares how fast the underlying processor is?

So why might someone write specs this way? Answer: When they have a prior arrangement with someone looking to dump a bunch of obsolete equipment on some sucker.

The circle was closed once I reached section 5.2 which referenced James Gompers as the consultant to the project. Gompers has been a security consultant for MCPS before. Writing in the Parents Coalition Blog, Louis Wilen says (May 1 2009):

[MCPS] Security Director Hellmuth was so impressed by Gompers that he hired him to select millions of dollars of video cameras and computer-based visitor tracking systems for our schools. Hellmuth had so much confidence in Gompers that he even disregarded the MCPS procurement procedures and state laws that require that competitive bids must be solicited for large purchases. Even the selection of Gompers, Inc. as the security consulting firm was made on a "no-bid" basis by Hellmuth.

The PC Blog raises a number of concerns regarding Gompers, his business practices, his relationship to MCPS and the disregard for their own policies that MCPS appears to be taking in this relationship. I encourage you to read their blog for more details.

More Problems?

Building on the Gompers relationship, I'll mention just one more peculiar technical aspect of this spec. First note that one of Gompers' achievements was selecting a particular line as the standard for MCPS security cameras. According to the press release of the company (IQinVision) whose products (IQeye cameras) were selected, Bob Helmuth (Directory of School Safety and Security for MCPS) said:

For what we wanted to accomplish at MCPS, the IQeye cameras was the best choice for us. We would go with nothing less than megapixel cameras both for image quality and for coverage.

Sure enough, the RFP does specify IQeye cameras just as MCPS standardized on. However, the RFP says:

8.3.14 The video will be 640x480 resolution
8.3.15 The video will be at up to 2 images/second

But 640x480 is much less (roughly 70% less) than the "megapixel" cameras that MCPS Security Directory Helmuth said are now required. (Remember: "We could go with nothing less than megapixel cameras.") And the particular model IQeye732) isn't even listed in the IQeye website product line-up. (Nor could I find it anywhere on the web with google.) Presuming it's an unannounced upcoming model, if it follows the IQeye naming conventions, the 732 will be a 2-megapixel model. But because of the way the RFP is written, it's a waste of money because the video will be at 640x480. No more, no less.

Oh, and the video will be at "up to 2 images/second." Again, a really strange way of phrasing because it specifies a maximum rather than a minimum. And again, that's a fraction of the camera's ability. So once more, it's wasted money to buy such a camera. And frankly, 2 images/second really sucks. Even the cheapest IQeye cameras can do 30 images/second. (And the Gompers-specified cameras are far from the cheapest.)

And that MCPS standard (for which MCPS paid Gompers) for IQeye cameras and their megapixel cameras? That was a waste of money too. I don't know how much MCPS paid Gompers but it wouldn't surprise me if it was in the range of $50K - $100K.

By the way, according to MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast, " All of our technology partners know they are not permitted to use MCPS testimonials in advertising." This is a quote from a January 2009 memo of his (see answer #9). This is otherwise known as MCPS Policy BBB. As can be seen with the press release from IQeye, this policy is clearly being ignored. Writing in the Parents Coalition Blog, Janis Sartucci described this in detail along with several other failures of the policy. It is an eye-opening read.

Bottom Line

Although I've picked out just a few examples, the entire proposal has more. Some of them are harder to explain but equally laughable. Browsing the proposal is not for the faint-of-heart but if have a bit of technical expertise, give it a read. Post a comment describing the absurdities that you find. (Here's one to get you started: Search for Linux and Windows.)

So what's this going to cost? Because it sounds incredibly expensive. Add up all paraphenalia in the RFP (chemical warefare detectors?!), new software (that we get to debug), labor costs (one-time, maintenance, training), etc., and we're talking millions of dollars. And that's for a system that has no functional guarantees that it will actually stop anyone from entering the school and, for that matter, even detect a knife or gun.

At my own workplace, we have card-based entry systems that are regularly bypassed. Two people approach the door at the same time, the first swipes the card. The second walks through while the door is still open. So much for million-dollar security. We could spend less (and lower the unemployment rate) by employing people to stand at the doors all day. Better yet, let's pay these people to stay home. It would be an equally effective system and a whole lot cheaper.

FIOS schedule for Rockville and Gaithersburg

2009-08-09T10:51:00.006-04:00

Verizon's construction schedule has expanded significantly from the last time I checked it. Their Maryland FIOS schedule suggests that Verizon is cruising through Rockville. Gaithersburg, too. Gaithersburg approved its franchise this past May and predicting complete coverage by the end of 2009. Bets, anyone?

Both Rockville and Gaithersburg have information pages on their individual websites for cable TV and telecommunications (Rockville, Gaithersburg) but they are pretty skimpy - and in the case of schedules, just referring the reader back to the companies. Don't hesitate to contact your local officials if you have questions.

Email Ownership

2009-03-24T01:12:00.002-04:00

I've written previously about ISP-provided email addresses and how risky they are. To recap, you're at the mercy of your ISP when you use an address such as don@comcast.net or don@verizon.net. Numerous people at broadbandreports.com have reported problems with their Comcast email. The only common factor seems to be that Comcast's system is too complex. Because your email address is tied to your account which is tied to every other service Comcast offers, people have found their emails locked due to anything from late payments to installation of phone service.

Previously, I mentioned another concern: Switch providers and you must leave your address behind. Few ISPs providers let you keep your address or offer to forward your email.

As if to prove me wrong, one of my friends found himself in this very situation when he switched from Comcast to Verizon a year ago. He had long been using a comcast.net address, had given it out to many people, and had subscribed to various mailing lists with it. And he figured the address would stop working when he left Comcast.

But the comcast.net address continued working. So he continued using it.

Curiously, Comcast didn't turn it off or ask for it back. Until...

About a year later, he decided he didn't like Verizon and wanted to go back to Comcast. Even I couldn't have guessed what would happen next: As soon as he opened a new account with Comcast, his old Comcast email address stopped working!

After calls to the local office proved unhelpful, he called Comcast's corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, each time being referred to an Executive Response Team member who would vow to fix the problem. After weeks of getting nowhere, he tracked down a technician who seemed to understand - but lacked the immediate access to make the needed changes. But enough badgering and finally someone got through and my friend got his email account back. It only took my friend hours of time on the phone spread over 60 days - for a fix that shouldn't have taken more than 10 minutes.

You may want to put that in the "just asking for trouble" category. After all, my friend did continue using a Comcast service (an email address) despite no longer being a customer. But I think you're at significant risk even if you are a Comcast customer in good standing. Case in point: A poster (userid: baffled) on dslreports.com described that an email address he had used for 4 1/2 years recently stopped working. When he called, Comcast told him that that another customer with the same name in Texas closed his Comcast account and the email address was "owned" by the Texan. (Clearly Comcast's idea of "ownership" is pretty weak if you can "own" it one day and "not own" it the next.) Anyway, since Mr. Texas was the "legal owner" of the email address, Comcast said there was nothing they could do.

In addition, baffled found that his sub-account email addresses were inoperative as well including one that he used as a business address. Fortunately, Comcast was able to resolve his problem in just 24 hours. It was just an accident! Our bad!

Ultimately, he got his accounts back along with his emails. But I would've bet against it. It is apparent from these and other stories that Comcast is not concerned with the way they handle email addresses.

If anyone can show me an ISP that provides any kind of guarantees on their mail service, I'd love to see it. Until then, I restate my earlier advice: Using ISP-provided email addresses is just too risky. And using them for business is insane.

Can We Call

2009-02-23T01:19:00.003-05:00

Is it too much to hope that I could get through a year without loss of service? Made it to February anyway. I guess that's something.

Thursday, Feb 20, 2009

I woke to find my internet service wasn't working. I confirmed it wasn't my equipment. The lights on the cable modem acknowledged the problem to be at the modem or beyond it. So I called Comcast.

Ricardo answered. I explained the problem and said it showed the same symptoms as the previous outage I had back in July. I mentioned this because the tech who visited me then promised that someone would come back and complete the fix or else the problem would recur.

Me: (paraphrase) That was in July. And no one ever came back.
Ricardo: (paraphrase) According to my records, someone did come out and fix it.
Me: They may have fixed something but it wasn't the right thing. The splitter on the pole wasn't touched and it was supposed to be removed. Could you send someone who can do the right job?
Ricardo: I can give you an appointment for a technician to come to your home on Saturday between 8-11am.
Me: Thank you.
Ricardo: Do you have a phone number for the technician to call before he comes over?
Me: I have VOIP, so without internet service, he won't be able to reach me.
Ricardo: How about a cell phone number?
Me: Cell service is unreliable. Just have the tech come without calling. I'll be here.
Ricardo: Ok, I'll write that on the ticket. He'll come without calling. But I have to warn you that if he's running late, he'll have no way to contact you.
Me: I understand.

Here's a picture of the splitter in question - installed by Comcast.

Friday

Late Friday, I found the internet connection was active. But I still wanted the tech to come out and fix the connectors so I looked forward to Saturday morning.

Saturday

8-11am. No one showed. When 11am came, I assumed the tech was running late so I didn't worry.

At 3pm, I figured there's no way a tech could be running this far behind but I had to leave the house to run an errand so I called Comcast just to make sure the tech wouldn't waste his time trying to visit me even this late.

Me: It's 3pm. What happened to the technician?
Anika: The appointment was cancelled because there was no phone number to call.
Me: Are you sure? I specifically told Ricardo that I had no working phone and just to come over. Ricardo said he was writing down that there was no phone and the tech should come over without calling. Are you sure there are no notes to that effect?
Anika: There is no such note.

Me: Can we get Ricardo on the phone? Let's clear this up right now.
Anika: Ok, just tell me his extension.
Me: You want me to tell you his extension?
Anika: Yes, that's the only way I can get in touch with other people here.
Me: He gave me his name. That's not enough?
Anika: The call center is very large, sir. I cannot do anything with just his name.
Me: Can I speak to a supervisor? I'd like to formally complain about Ricardo or find out what's going on.
Anika: There are no supervisors here on Saturday. Call back during the week.

Anika offered to credit me $20 for the missed appointment and offered to reschedule the appointment.

Anika: Can I reschedule you now? I might be able to send someone there later today.
Me: No thank you. I can't wait here any longer.

We ended the phone call and I left the house at that point.

7pm. I returned later that evening and found a note from a Comcast technician on my front door. The technician noted that the "Scheduled Work Date and Time" for the job was 2-5pm. He noted that he arrived at 4:38pm.

A couple of observations can be drawn from this episode. The first is that either someone is lying or Comcast's system for taking notes isn't working. In fact, this isn't the first time I've encountered this problem.

Second, there's no explanation for how a technician would summarily cancel an appointment on his own. Just because there's no phone number isn't a useful reason. (Even a non-answering number isn't a good reason as I explained in a previous posting.)

Third, there's no explanation for the 2-5pm appointment. Where did it come from? It couldn't have been Anika because I told her I couldn't wait at the house any longer. I specifically told her not to send a technician later in the day. Could the technician just have decided on his own? Without even contacting the customer? What kind of communication is there between the people answering the phone and the techs in the field? Or rather why is it so bad? Here's a more detailed reminder.

Lastly, I have now learned that just because a Comcast representative gives me a name, I should also ask for a phone number. I've never heard of this nonsense before but ok, I'll play along if that's what it takes.

I will file a formal complaint with Montgomery County. Not only is something seriously broken with Comcast's customer support but my connection is still problematic - and it's been this way for 8 months.

Transparency Not Either

2009-02-19T14:12:00.005-05:00

I recently described a state bill to create a website that would enable the public to see MCPS purchases - and my testimony at Annapolis requesting to remove the $10K threshold. To recap, the legislators didn't seem interested in the removal idea. I have since found out that they did exactly the opposite! Yes, they raised the threshold to $25K.

My only thought: We must vote these people out of office at the next opportunity. Let me know if you have better suggestions.

Montgomery County's Turn

Now Montgomery County is considering a similar bill for county purchases, Council Bill 1-09. Curiously, it has the same problem - the bill only requires transparency for purchases $25K or higher. What is with these people that they cannot think of amounts less than $25K?

The county council is scheduled to take action on this bill next week (Feb 24 2009) so you still have several days to weigh in. I submitted essentially the same letter that I did to the state but this time focusing more clearly on the limit, even going so far as to put my thrust in the subtitle in English that even a 5th grader would understand. Here it is:

Comments On Bill 1-09 Finance - Spending Disclosure

Summary: Good bill but would be better if the $25,000 limit was removed.

Don Libes
February 5, 2009
I strongly support the intent of Bill 1-09 - to provide transparency of county purchases. But while thousand dollar purchases need disclosure, so do smaller ones. Many inappropriate purchases are less than a thousand dollars or even a hundred dollars - exorbitant lunches and gifts, unjustifiable travel, and so on. Limits, whether $25,000 or $10,000, are easy to avoid. It’s not hard to break up a million-dollar purchase of electronic whiteboards or computers in to groups of purchases that fall below the limit. It requires little effort to do - a few more clicks of the mouse.

So pass the bill but without dollar limits and without qualifying words such as “aggregate” that could delay disclosure. Rather, the website should report any purchase that the county tracks using its existing financial management system. The cost of this change would be negligible given that the purchases are already in an existing database. And disk space is cheap. $100 buys enough space to hold decades worth of purchase information.

We should take a cue from our new president. On his first day of office, President Obama issued a memorandum indicating that, unless there is a justifiable reason to withhold information, records must be public by default. If there is a justifiable reason for the $25K limit, I have yet to hear it. Disclosure should not have to wait for specific requests from the public.

I close with the following words from Obama's memorandum. Accountability is in the interest of the government as well as the citizenry. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

Transparency? Not.

2009-02-05T03:21:00.010-05:00

Transparency is sweeping the land. Or is it?

The federal government has established a website to let you see what the government is spending your money on (www.USASpending.gov) and Maryland has created a similar spending website for state purchases (www.spending.dbm.maryland.gov).

Council Bill 1-09 has been drafted to create a similar website at the county level, sponsored by Councilmembers Andrews and Berliner.

Unfortunately, the school system (MCPS) has fallen through the cracks. County lawyers assert that MCPS does not have to yield its data to the state or the country websites. So another bill has been drafted to force the creation of a website specifically for MCPS. This bill is MC 930-09, sponsored by Delegate Alfred Carr. (Carr's connection to telecomm issues? He succeeded Jane Lawton, the past MC Cable Administrator whose untimely passing left the seat available. Carr's previous job? A manager at Verizon!)

Unfortunately, all of these bills share one common problem. The reporting levels are too high. The state website and proposed county website only require reporting of purchases $25K or higher. Carr's MCPS bill has a level of $10K or higher.

I believe the level should be much less. The bill's author explained to me that the $10K limit was simply chosen as a reflection of the smaller budget of MCPS compared to the state. The state's $25K limit was based on a figure used to require additional signatures during purchasing. But just because purchases require less oversight doesn't mean they shouldn't be public. To the contrary, the smallest purchases are made with the least oversight. Obviously, they need public disclosure as much as big purchases, just for a different reason.

And it should be easy extend the proposed website to smaller purchases. (How hard is it to remove the limit from an SQL query? Sigh.) And what would it cost? At 1TB for $100, we could fit the entire MCPS purchase history on a single disk. It is my understanding that the data is already tracked internally by MCPS in a single database. Periodic copies to an external mirror should be trivial. And since the website would be read-only, security risks are minimal.

With that in mind, I encourage you to contact your county councilmembers and state delegates and request that they lower the dollar limits on these bills.

Here is the text of my own testimony that I presented at Annapolis at a public hearing on the measure. (Yes, it is short! Individuals are limited to two minutes.)

Testimony on MC 930-09
Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
Don Libes
January 30, 2009

My name is Don Libes. I’m representing myself, a typical taxpayer and parent with a child in public school. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on this legislation.

I strongly support its intent - to provide transparency in the purchases by my public school system. I have been repeatedly dismayed at purchases that surely would not have occurred had the purchasers known that the public would immediately see such inappropriate expenditures.

But many inappropriate purchases are less than a thousand dollars or even a hundred dollars - exorbitant lunches and gifts, unjustifiable travel, and so on. Such limits, whether $10,000 or $25,000, are easy to avoid. It’s not hard to break up a million-dollar purchase of electronic whiteboards or computers in to individual purchases that fall below the limit. It requires little
effort to do - a few more clicks of the mouse.

So pass the bill but without limits and without qualifying words such as "aggregate" that could delay disclosure. The cost of this project is negligible given that the purchases are already in an existing database. And to remove the $10,000 limit requires no additional labor costs.

We should take a cue from our new president. On his first day of office, President Obama issued a memorandum indicating that, unless there is a justifiable reason to withhold information, records must be public by default. Disclosure should not have to wait for specific requests from the public.

I close with the following words from Obama's memorandum. Accountability is in the interest of the government as well as the citizenry. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."

Lest this sound like it ought to have been enough, it wasn't. After delivering my testimony to the MC Delegation, they continued discussion of the merits of the bill with the limit at $10K. Not a single delegate supported lowering the limit.

Two other citizens testified as well. Louis Willen (testimony), representing the Parents Coalition, addressed the technical merits of the website and explained why it would cost much less than MCPS claims. More like $5K. As I mentioned, MCPS already has the data collected. It's just a matter of regularly copying it to a public repository with a query page exposed to the public. However MCPS started out saying that it would cost $200K and then lowered its estimate to "$40 to 50K". But it is apparent that they haven't done their homework and have no real idea of what's involved.

Janis Sartucci also testified, providing real-world examples of purchases that needed the kind of public airing such a website would provide. It's my understanding that when Janis has asked MCPS for data in the past, data that should be public in the first place, MCPS has told her that she must pay the cost of MCPS preparing the data for release. This is an idea right out of the dark ages.

In the end, it may not matter much anyway. MCPS doesn't want to build it unless they are specifically offered new money. And the delegates are unlikely to give the county money for the purpose, instead just saying build it on your own. So if the bill passes without money attached, it's a useless result.

Delegate Carr pointed out that MCPS should be happy to pay for it themselves. After all, it's likely that disclosure of MCPS purchases to the public would ultimately result in thousands of dollars of savings. And it would also reduce the cost of responding to information requests by parents for the purchasing data. Currently, it's all done manually. A parent makes a request and some MCPS staffer has to track down the data, explain how much it will cost to print it, send the estimate back to the parent (or deny the data exists), handle the reply (likely an argument), and so on.

Bottom line: The bill is unlikely to have a useful impact even if passed. But with some simple changes, it has a future. However, the delegates and MCPS need to hear this from the voters.

Final note: As the hearing began, the delegate chair noticed two people operating a professional videocamera. Delegate Brian Feldman, chair of the delegates, asked whether the people were recording audio and video or just taking still photos. After establishing that they were indeed recording both video and audio, the chair insisted they stop recording. None of the other delegates protested again the sad irony - that their own process of making transparency law itself would not be transparent to the public.

Your Mission, Should You Decide To Accept It

2009-01-30T21:22:00.005-05:00

Interested in serving on the county's Cable and Communications Advisory Committee? The CCAC has four vacancies. Here is the
official announcement.

I've described the committee many times in the past but here is a link to perhaps the most in-depth description. I wrote it several years ago so it's no longer entirely accurate but it's still pretty close.

Here is a link to the current members of the committee. These are your representatives. Feel free to contact them to ask what their experience serving on the committee is like. Or ask them about communication-related issues of concern to you. Oh, you can't figure out how to contact them? Their names aren't linked to an email address? There's no phone number? How about that!

You're got your first task then: Get on the committee and set about making the members more accessible to the citizens who they are supposed to represent!

Adventures in Billing

2008-09-05T13:06:00.002-04:00

Followup to last week's report on the Film Fest aka My Latest Comcastic Adventure: Looking at my statement, I found that Comcast credited me $36 for the incident. But I had expected a credit of $47.86, composed of two $20 credits for the two failures of technicians to arrive within the promised windows and then another $7.86 for the pro-rated outage. The billing department representative said there was no explanation for the $36 in the notes. (How many times have I heard this?)

I asked if she could correct the credit but the billing representative could not get her head around the issue. "The tech didn't come to your house because he called but no one answered, so no one was home, so it's your fault no one showed." It didn't matter to her that my phone service didn't work so there was no way that technician could've called me. Nor did it matter that I had made sure the original service request included that my phone service didn't work and I had specifically instructed the tech not to call before coming. "There is no explanation in the notes of that, sir."

After a half hour on the phone, she gave up trying to understand and just gave me another $40 credit. I asked her if she could remove the $36 credit (now an over-credit) and lower it to $7.86 but she said, sorry no, "I cannot remove the credit."

I also discovered that Comcast put me on a different plan. The new plan lowered my monthly internet fee from $57.95 to $33.00 for 12 months. But I found this out only when I saw my statement, whereupon I immediately called Comcast to find out the details of the plan that had a 57% cut in price. Would there be a corresponding cut in speed? At first, the Comcast rep insisted my bill was wrong and there was no such plan was available. However, after some research, he came back on the phone and sheepishly admitted that, yes indeed, my plan existed and what's more, it had a higher speed than I was getting before at $57.95.

So was I overpaying before, I asked. Without directly answering my question, he explained that the $33 plan is usually only provided by the marketing department or the retention department.

Retention

I've been through this before. The retention department, like other parts of Comcast, appears to be unreliable. They get involved when you call to cancel your service. Sometimes Comcast will ask why you're cancelling. Sometimes they won't. If they do ask, presumably the answer is that you're switching to Verizon for faster, cheaper, and more reliable service.

But, cheapskate that I am, I have stuck with Comcast due to their willingness to compete with Verizon purely on the basis of the price. I would really appreciate competition on speed and reliability too but I guess that's too much to ask for. And, clearly in my case, reliability - or lack thereof - doesn't seem to be a showstopper. I must enjoy being mistreated or having an unreliable connection. Why else would I stay? Laziness? Masochism?

In contrast, my neighbors have switched to Verizon. My community surveyed everyone last year and again this year - everyone who responded asserted they had switched. If there are any Comcast subscribers left in the neighborhood besides me, I'm not aware of them.

One neighbor did complain about problems with Verizon's billing, a problem I have seen with regularity at broadbandreports.com. But Comcast's billing department has a history of problems too and, if my experience is any indicator, it appears as if nothing has changed.

One more thing that hasn't changed: The telephone pole in front of my house still has that malignant splitter in my connection, more than a month after Comcast promised it would be removed.

Comcast Film Fest

2008-08-17T12:10:00.006-04:00

The Comcast Film Fest started this weekend and runs through August 24, 2008. I am not going this year although I have in the past. It's quite enjoyable as long as too many people don't show up. Otherwise it can be a mob scene. (Avoid Friday and Saturday!)

I also wouldn't recommend going to a movie at the Fest unless you've seen that particular movie before. The sound is just a bit too iffy. But the atmosphere is nice. Seeing a movie under the stars with family and friends is quite pleasant.

The festival is also a benefit for the NIH - a worthy cause. But why should Comcast donate a portion of their customer's payments to charity? Wouldn't it make more sense to just lower the rates - and let their customers decide for themselves, to whom and how much to donate? By Comcast making the decision to donate, customers not only lose the decision-making power but customers lose the credit as well. That's just wrong.

Personally, I want to donate a portion of my income; but here Comcast is using my hard-earned money to send two messages: 1) they don't need the money and 2) they care. I don't believe either is true. Don't get me wrong - I believe the employees themselves care; but the company? It's a business answerable to shareholders. And like the customers, the shareholders themselves are perfectly capable of donating themselves.

As for whether Comcast needs the money they are donating, that's a more difficult question. But the impression I get is that they might benefit by spending more money in hopes of improving their service. After all, Comcast continues to have one of the worst reputations in the industry.

As if to drive the point home, my service went out recently. It began on a Thursday. The Comcast representative asked if I could be home on Sunday from 2-5pm. "Yes, but I'm pretty sure I need an outdoor technician, not an indoor tech. Can you please send someone who can climb the pole?"

"No, we need to send an indoor tech first. If he determines an outdoor tech is needed, we'll schedule one at that time." I explained in detail why I felt it was likely outside but the rep insisted I be scheduled for an indoor tech and that I had to be home.

Sunday 2-5pm - You can probably already guess - the technician didn't show.

At 5:05pm, I called Comcast. The message I heard was (paraphrase) "We're sorry but the office is closed. Please call back during business hours." Turns out their business hours end at 5! Grrr.

At that point, I called Comcast's national support number. (It's not advertised for local use but I use it as a backup for situations like this.) The rep who answered put me on hold while he checked why no one showed. Finally, I heard: "Dispatch cannot get a hold of him. He's probably running late; just wait another hour." I waited two more hours and then called again. "He was there - twice - and found no one home." The tech obviously never visited my house - I had my car in the driveway and garage doors wide open the entire time. The Comcast representative on the phone with me said "I don't believe him either."

So he rescheduled me for two days later. He also recommended I call Monday and said that Comcast holds back a few appointments for emergencies or gets same-day appointments as people cancel. I called on Monday - no appointments.

I asked if I could pick up a replacement modem just to confirm that it wasn't a modem issue. So on my way home from work, I stopped by the local office and swapped modems. I asked if the new modem has been tested. "Yes." Do I have to call you once I plug it in? "Sir, it will work. Just take it home and plug it in."

Plugged in directly to where the line entered my house, the new modem didn't work, confirming to myself that it was an outside problem.

On Tuesday, I waited during my 11-2pm time slot. At 1pm, I decided I'd better make sure the tech was coming and so I called Comcast. "We can't reach the technician but I'm sure he'll show." I explained that he didn't show the last time so I'd like some confirmation. I didn't get it.

Tuesday 2:00pm - At the end of the time slot, I called Comcast. "We cannot reach the technician - just give him another hour and a half." Huh? The rep gave me her extension so I could call her back directly if necessary and then assured me she'll be on duty until 6pm.

Tuesday 3:30pm - The tech still hadn't shown but I saw the modem go online. No connectivity however. I called up and asked 1) where the tech was and 2) if the modem was in the walled garden. It took her 10 minutes to confirm the walled garden. In other words, Comcast gave me a modem that their own service didn't recognize. Back from listening to Comcast's once-jazzy but now-disturbing hold music yet again, I heard her say "Let me put you on hold again while I fix it." After 20 minutes, I gave up waiting and hung up.

Tuesday 5:00pm - The modem still wasn't working. The technician still hadn't shown. Three hours had passed since the time slot ended. Using the number given to me by the previous rep, I called her back. Got her voice mail.

At this point, I called the regular local support line and spoke to yet another rep. He assured me he'd look into the problem and call me back. While we were speaking I suddenly saw connectivity. I must have been out of my mind at this point because I suggested canceling the appointment for the tech. I should have realized there was still a problem but I suppose I was thinking out loud why I should continue waiting for a tech who would never show. The rep cancelled the appointment.

Tuesday 6:43pm - The modem went offline. So I called Comcast again. While on the phone, the technician arrived. I told him I was amazed he showed up given that the appointment was cancelled. He said no one told him it was cancelled. (There's clearly a serious communication problem between techs in the field and their dispatcher.)

Turns out that he was a contractor so it was critically important that he not be told. According to him, he wouldn't get paid if he was informed the appointment was cancelled.

I asked him why he was so late - almost 5 hours past the window! He said that Comcast overschedules him - all the time. I could see why. He spent about an hour checking the connections and signal levels inside and outside the house. Finally, he narrowed it down to an outside problem. Someone had added a splitter 5' up the pole. Not only was that the problem but it was amateurishly done. He said he'd phone it in and someone would come out within 24 hours and give me a direct connection. He put on new connectors and, using electrical tape, rewrapped the splitter little better than the way he found it and left.

It's now been three weeks since my 6-day outage and the splitter is still hanging on the pole just the way he left it. I figure it won't be long before my connection goes out again. But if it does, I guess I can go watch movies for free at the Comcast Film Fest.

Rockville Gets FIOS TV

2008-08-07T16:16:00.002-04:00

The City of Rockville has agreed to adopt the Verizon cable franchise held by Montgomery County. This means that Rockville inhabitants will be able to get TV service as well as internet and phone service. Briana Gowing, Verizon VP of External Affairs said that Verizon hopes "to begin construction in mid to late September, possibly selling FiOS bundles in limited areas before the end of the year." Verizon's full press release covers more detail about the new service.

I imagine that Verizon will push service into Rockville very quickly. Verizon says that roughly 23,000 households will be eligible. The downside is that residents in other parts of MC may have to wait even longer to get FIOS. Here is Verizon's list of roads where they're working during August 2008.

Rockville residents will soon enjoy the same thing that I enjoy - namely, advertisements many times a month for Verizon service bundles. As a reminder, service bundles (TV, internet, and phone) sound attractive. However, I feel obliged to remind you that bundles have their downsides. Here's a discussion from dslreports as well as an earlier analysis that I made specifically about Comcast's bundles.

To be fair, there are people for whom bundles make sense. I just don't think any of them would be reading my blog.

Rockville Goes FiOS

2008-06-08T22:34:00.007-04:00

It appears that the Rockville Council will put an agreement to bed with Verizon, allowing FiOS service to provided to residents of the City of Rockville. The Council is set to approve the agreement this Monday, June 9, 2008. If you're interested in attending, the meeting is at 7pm, although the Verizon items are slated for 8:35pm.

Reading between the lines of the documentation that Rockville has made available, it appears that Rockville backed down on their demands for Verizon to pay Rockville's standard utility permit fees. It looks like Rockville has saved face by outsourcing much of their work, thereby cutting down on their own bills. At the same time, Verizon got a much better deal that it originally faced; however, it is taking a certain gamble that Rockville's new contractors are more efficient and won't leave Verizon with problems. We'll know in a year or so if this made sense.

The documentation is quite vague about when service can be expected. Rockville residents might see service as early as this year. And some will receive service no earlier than next year. King Farm is specifically mentioned because it is served out of Verizon's Gaithersburg central office and Verizon does not even expect approval from Gaithersburg before next year.

The Candidates Speak

2007-11-01T22:23:00.000-04:00

Previously, I mentioned that I would ask each candidate for Mayor or Council of Rockville to provide a statement responding to the question:

Please address why the city has been unable to come to terms with Verizon for FIOS internet and TV service and how your approach would differ.

I am pleased to provide their responses here. Feel free to comment on them. (No mudslinging please!) I also encourage you to visit their websites so you can learn more about them. You may also want to contact the candidates individually for more information. I have provided the websites and email for each candidate below.

I present them in the order that I received them, grouped by mayor and council. Do not stop reading after the first few! They're all worth studying closely.

Some of the statements are a bit casual while others are more formal but in the end I felt that nicely reflected more of each candidate. But for that reason, I feel obliged to show exactly what I sent to each candidate originally.

I write a blog (The Libes Libation) that covers cable and telecommunication issues in Montgomery County and is read by many Rockville voters. I would appreciate if you could provide me with a statement explaining why the city has been unable to come to terms with Verizon for FIOS internet and TV service and whether you believe Rockville's position is correct or how your approach would differ.

I will post your statement on my website along with those of all the other candidates. Please be as detailed as possible. Simply saying "I intend to bring everyone to the table so that we can engage in open and productive negotations" is not compelling. Indeed, there is no easy answer but you should at least be able to explain how you come down on the issues mentioned in this recent statement by the Mayor:
Hopefully, if Verizon were to work with us in good faith, we could bring these matters to a close very soon.

There have been numerous instances across the country of damage done by phone companies (in some instance, Verizon) when laying their new fiber. We also think it would be appropriate for Verizon to pay fees to the city government commensurate with the city government's additional cost of inspecting their work to make sure everything is done properly.

An additional concern that we continue to have, which you need to be aware of, is that Verizon refuses to agree to have all Rockville homes wired within even five years. Even if the city government were to bring these matters to a close with Verizon tomorrow, you could potentially end up waiting another five years or more for Verizon to bring their FIOS service to your street.

We have asked Verizon to agree to have all Rockville homes wired within two to three years, but they have thus far refused to agree to this. We also wanted to make sure that they do not purposefully first wire more affluent neighborhoods, and leave the least affluent for last. Verizon has thus far refused to address this potential concern as well.

Larry
You may also find it useful to browse my blog. Here is the address:
http://www.libes.com/don/blog

I would appreciate a response by November 1. Feel free to email or call if you have any questions.

Thanks
Don Libes

So that was the email that each candidate received. Here are their responses.

Candidates for Rockville City Mayor

Mark Pierzchala, Candidate for Rockville City Mayor
Email: votepierzchala@cs.com
Web: www.votepierzchala.org

Don,

Here is my answer taken directly from my website.

The FiOS technology is superb and would offer numerous benefits to residents for phone, television, and Internet access. However, Verizon has a mixed record of installation elsewhere in Montgomery County including cutting cables and damaging property. In addition, Verizon will not commit to a 2-year schedule for installation everywhere in Rockville (as requested by Mayor and Council), including for example, communities such as King Farm not getting the service for several years. Finally, it appears that Verizon wants a substantial discount on Right Of Way fees published by Rockville in 2003.

I think Mayor and Council are correct to insist on standards for correct installation and to insist on payment of reasonable fees. The City will have numerous costs associated with the installation of the fiber cable including inspection and putting the grid on its GIS system (for maps). These City costs should be covered, otherwise it is a subsidy to a private company. I would not insist on the 2-year installation timeframe; there can be some accommodation here. Mayor and Council recently said that they're waiting for Verizon to come back to Rockville to start talking again. If elected Mayor, I would initiate the discussions and try to come to a reasonable deal.

Drew Powell, Candidate for Rockville City Mayor
Email: drew@votepowell.org
Web: www.votepowell.org

Dear Don,

Thank you for contacting me on this important issue.

As the only mayoral candidate in the telecommunications field, I feel strongly about this issue. It is imperative that Rockville move forward on this initiative with a great sense of urgency.

In the very near future millions homes and businesses throughout the country and the globe will be directly connected to the world’s telecommunications infrastructure (Internet, phone, television, etc.) via high speed fiber optics. Rockville must be a participant in this global telecommunications Renaissance for the following reasons:

Rockville is truly an international city as it is a part of the Greater Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area. More than one third of all Rockville residents were born outside the U.S. and many more have international ties. How can Rockville expect to compete on the world market without the infrastructure necessary to do the job? How can we truly be a “world class” city attempting to “make do” with past centuries’ copper connectivity?

Additionally, as gridlock increases on our roads, telecommuting becomes evermore important as a major component in ameliorating our traffic nightmares. The possibility that many office workers, consultants and entrepreneurs can stay off the roads in home offices is essential if we’re to get a handle on traffic and our environment. Keeping people connected and out of their cars can make a big dent in Rockville’s carbon footprint. With its extreme bandwidth capabilities, fiber optics is the one technology that will allow more telecommuting solutions than any copper-based scheme. Office workers would be able to virtually attend meetings anywhere in the world (real-time teleconferencing) and conduct business via network-based applications, while their families enjoy HD television, ultra-clear telephone conversations and high speed Internet. Eliminating commutes and keeping families together will greatly increase Rockville residents’ quality of life.

Lastly, the U.S.A. was built on competition. Arbitrarily preventing competition has never been good for Wall Street, Main Street or your street. Artificially maintaining the status quo of the cable company’s monopoly for high speed access is not in Rockville’s collective and long term interests. Offering citizens high speed telecommunications options will inherently bring down prices and make even better technology solutions available in the future.

It has been stated by my opponent that the current fiber optic provider (Verizon) has been unwilling to work with the City in the deployment of fiber optic solutions. I find this troubling in that most surrounding jurisdictions have had no such problems. As long as Verizon or any telecommunications provider can do its part in putting things back the way they were prior to the installation of fiber, we can move forward with little or no impact to Rockville’s commuters or taxpayers.

There were many more obstacles in building Rockville’s new Town Center than there are in securing a win-win arrangement for the installation of citywide fiber optics. It takes only the will to get the job done.

As Rockville’s Mayor, I will get the job done.

Very sincerely,
Drew Powell

Susan Hoffmann, Candidate for Rockville City Mayor
Email: susan@susanhoffmann.com
Web: www.susanhoffmann.com

Dear Mr. Libes,

I am on record both in City Council meetings and during our candidate forums to be in strong support of competition for Comcast or any of the cable service providers that may come to Rockville. Regarding Verizon specifically, the City has made every attempt to work with Verizon to be a FIOS provider, as long as they agree to abide by the City's requirements as follows:

1. to pay the same cost for the right to provide fiber in Rockville that others [Comcast] have paid
2. to sign our right-of-way agreement so that they will return any roads, sidewalks or private lawns to the condition in which they were found prior to beginning the installation of fiber or cable
3. that they will provide service in a fair and timely way to all of the residents of Rockville, including King Farm, Fallsgrove and our condominiums and apartments

Verizon does not have the best record when it comes to their standards of work during and after cable installation. The work done in the County was often left uncovered at the end of the day, causing driving hazards and significant access difficulties for residents. Verizon has asked for a reduction of the per foot rate as compared to what Comcast paid. They have yet to provide a justification for this request. They won't have fiber to all of Rockville for at least five to seven years. And finally, they refuse to return to the table to continue the dialogue. This impasse has lasted for over a year.

Two weeks ago, I saw the Verizon government relations representative at the Rockville Chamber of Commerce candidate forum. I asked her if I could count on her to meet with the City after the election. She agreed that she would. I am counting on her to keep her word and get the process moving again. I cannot over-emphasize how strongly I feel about the value of competition on the cost we are charged by Comcast for cable. I hope Verizon will be part of the solution.
Best, Susan Hoffmann

Candidates for Rockville City Council

Brigitta Mullican, Candidate for Rockville City Council
Mail: m4council@verizon.net
Web: www.mullican4council.com

If elected to the Rockville City Council, I will want to get the complete details on why the deal with Verizon is not able to move forward. We should not keep Rockville residents as well as surrounding areas from benefiting from competition like Verizon.

If Rockville creates an unfair situation, it might be better for Montgomery County to negotiate for the entire Rockville area. I am concerned that the all the members of the Rockville Mayor and Council have not been provided the complete details on this request. As a Rockville council member, I will demand accurate information be provided to all council members.

I am a strong proponent of competition and want to know why the same deal is not provided to Verizon that was given Comcast. I will listen to all sides of this issue and expect the entire Rockville City Council to have a vote in this decision, but not before all accurate information is provided.

Thank you for asking for my view on the fiber-optic system being available to Rockville.

Brigitta Mullican

Phyllis Marcuccio, Candidate for Rockville City Council
Mail: marcu@erols.com
Web: www.phyllism.org

Dear Mr. Libes,

Please see below the status of the City's issues with the Verizon wireless proposal. I asked our City Manager to give me the current disposition of our negotiating. You can see by the text that follows, we are trying to come to an agreement. I delayed responding to you until I had the facts. Thank you for your patience.

Sincerely,
Phyllis Marcuccio

Phyllis,
Please see below in response to your call of earlier today. I sent this to Brad Roarke's blog.
Hope this helps.
-Scott

Scott Ullery, City Manager
City of Rockville
111 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850-2364
240-314-8102
FAX: 240-314-8130
----- Forwarded by Scott Ullery/RKV on 10/29/2007 01:18 PM -----

Scott Ullery/RKV
10/29/2007 01:20 PM

To: rockvillecentral-owner@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Rockville Central] Fee, FIOS, Foe, Fum

The City of Rockville is eager for competitive cable and Internet services to be available to its residents. We continue to negotiate with Verizon on an agreement that would allow the company to install and keep its new fiber optic cables in City streets, sidewalks and other rights-of-way. Among other things, this agreement simply requires the company to obtain necessary and routine permits to undertake construction and conduct its business using City streets, sidewalks and other rights-of-way. The permit process is essential to ensuring the public's property and all community interests are protected. Without the City's oversight, construction projects in the City's rights of way would present a very high risk of seriously damaging City assets, other utility infrastructure, and even private property.

The Mayor and Council have directed that the fees associated with these permits cover the city's costs, so that taxpayers are not, in effect, subsidizing a for-profit commercial enterprise. The normal fees that the City charges for work in the rights-of-way are based on a cost study done by an outside financial firm. For a project of the size proposed by Verizon, there is a great demand placed on City government services among them, permit application review, engineering review, traffic plan review, traffic control, review and oversight of plans for repair and restoration of streets, sidewalks, and any utilities that may be damaged; and inspection of the work as it progresses and upon completion. Verizon has declined to pay these fees and has requested substantial reductions in them. The City has offered a number of alternatives that, we believe, would meet both Verizon's and the City's needs. We are continuing to work with Verizon on these alternatives and hope to make progress soon on these negotiations.

The City also wants Verizon to commit to a faster and more reasonable timetable for rolling out the FIOS service to all residents in the City. Based on Verizon's current schedule, it may take five years or more for service to be provided to King Farm, which is not acceptable.

Scott Ullery, City Manager
City of Rockville
111 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850-2364
240-314-8102
FAX: 240-314-8130

Anne Robbins, Candidate for Rockville City Council
Mail: anner41@hotmail.com
Web: www.re-electannerobbins.com

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. First, this is a matter that needs to be discussed and hopefully brought to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiations involving all members of the new Mayor and Council. I believe it would be counter productive for me, or any of the incumbants, to give detailed positions on the current areas of disagreement between the City and Verizon. There have been real and substanial differences between the City and Verizon and, in my judgment, the past atmosphere for reaching accords has not been very positive for a number of reasons. I believe we should make a concerted effort, as a new Council, to move ahead, in a more positive context, and I feel that is possible. I have heard from a number of my constituents who are supportive of Verizon and I want to give this an opportunity to succeed. Having said that, I can also say that I am a firm believer in the value of open competition for government contracts and arrangements with businesses and corporations, and, I am concerned about fairness and cost impacts on all residents.

Piotr (Peter) Gajewski , Candidate for Rockville City Council
Mail: candidate@votegajewski.com
Web: www.votegajewski.com

Don,

Competition between service providers is the consumer’s strongest way of ensuring best service at the most competitive price. And so, I do believe that it behooves the City of Rockville to find a way for Verizon to compete with Comcast in Rockville.

I am not privy to the details of the present impasse between Rockville and Verizon but based on what has been reported, I do agree that the City should insist on a firm time frame for Verizon to wire the whole city. What that time frame should be (3 years? 5 years?) remains for me an open question. With respect to what neighborhoods should be wired when, I do not see this as a major issue, as long as there is agreement that all neighborhoods will be wired, and as long as the timeframe to accomplish this is reasonable.

Whether Verizon should pay the full cost of City inspectors is also an open question for me. It is in Verizon’s self interest to do the work in a satisfactory fashion. If it fails in this task (rips up other infrastructure, does not repair roads that it digs up, etc.) it could be subject to legal action. So, to what extent is shadowing Verizon, in order to inspect their work and then charge them for it, really necessary? Again, I am not privy to the details of the present impasse, so it is difficult for me to answer this, but I raise it as a concern.

I would be interested in learning more whether Verizon has a general problem of negotiating deals or whether Rockville is unique (or nearly unique) in their experience. It is a fact that Verizon has managed to enter into agreements with other jurisdictions, so is it possible that Rockville is just a particularly difficult partner? I notice that in recent weeks Rockville came to another negotiating impasse, this time with an artists who was asked to create a piece of art for our new Town Center. Is this just a coincidence, or is it possible that Rockville sometimes takes so principled a stance in negotiations that practical considerations are overshadowed (i.e. we can’t see the forest through the trees)?

If elected, I will want to explore the questions raised above as a road map for returning to the table with Verizon. While certainly no deal is better than a bad deal, in the long run, Rockville residents should not have to accept not having a full scope of services that Verizon can provide and is providing for many of our neighbors. By making Comcast compete with Verizon the services of both companies will be strengthened and Rockville residents will be the real winners.

Peter

John Britton, Candidate for Rockville City Council
Mail: jbritton@schnader.com
Web: www.vote4john.org

Don:

First, I have to say that I DO intend to bring everyone to the table so that we can engage in open and productive negotiations! Having said that, I also submit two other oft-repeated and over-used generalities connected with this issue -- I do not like the monopolistic franchise regime (full disclosure here as I am a disgruntled customer of Comcast) and I would like to see FiOS available to me and everyone else in Rockville as soon as possible.

The discussions, and reasons for delay, are threefold:

1. Infrastructure damage and replacement -- the installation of fiber optic cables necessarily involves the tearing up of City streets, sidewalks and other rights-of-way. The cost of replacement and any other damage as a result of installation should be borne by Verizon. Indeed, I don't think this is an issue as this is the standard operating procedure for any utility's work. I would add that the City and Verizon coordinate such infrastructure work with other utilities as much as possible, so that the same street is not torn up and rebuilt several times in a short time, causing a prolonged disruption in the community. I have seen too many times where one utility performs its work to be followed by another utility in the same right-of-way, where the jurisdiction seemingly could have limited the disruption through permit coordination. This level of coordination may have an impact on the roll-out plan if there is other extensive utility work concurrent with the installation of the fiber optic system.

2. Fees -- I appreciate the City's need to charge a fee that recovers its costs related to the permitting and oversight of the installation of the system. I favor, however, the position that the FiOS system is both a private, for-profit endeavor and a community benefit. After all, we want our City to be a leader, on the cutting edge, in telecommunications. It is good for our City and its residents. Although I need to do more homework on the extent and scope of the fees at issue, I would be more flexible on fees and balance the costs between Verizon and the City on the principle that there are necessary public costs for such a community service. Perhaps this is the essence of the City Manager's recent statement that the City has offered a number of alternatives that may satisfy both Verizon and the City, alternatives that I understand will be discussed in negotiations that will kick in again after the election.

3. Roll-out -- With one condition, I believe leaving it to Verizon and the market for scheduling the roll-out is appropriate. The irony in this instance is that by delaying the implementation to get a better deal on timing for certain customers, we've prolonged significantly the implementation time for all customers. The one condition is to employ all reasonable means to ensure that the rollout is effected equally in affluent and less affluent areas of the City. In the existing politically charged environment concerning equality of services for certain areas of the City, it is prudent to attempt a balanced rollout.

John Britton

Richard Gottfried, Candidate for Rockville City Council
Mail: richgott@erols.com
Web: www.gottfried4council.org

Dear Don,

Thank you for your interest in our opinions as candidates.

With regard to the FIOS issue in Rockville, following the explanations and counter-explanations as presented in the Mayor and Council sessions has been frustrating as complete information does not seem to be available.

Open competition for cable service is something that we need in Rockville, and as your next councilperson I would support engaging in dialogue with Verizon as to how we can bring Verizon service to Rockville. With our continuing focus on making Rockville a high tech, biotech nexus for Maryland businesses, it is imperative that we have the advanced infrastructure and competive service not only for entertainment purposes but to support information technology.

Some issues that will have to be resolved include access to condo and apartment buildings that are contractually obligated to Comcast and the issue of equal access throughout the City. It is troubling to me that alternate reports claim that Verizon FIOS has been installed in other areas of the County at a lesser cost. I don't know yet why that reported cost discrepancy exists.

I would like to bring all the interested parties to negotiation and find out what is the real situation with Verizon. So far, I have heard only one point of view expressed, that of the current Mayor and Council. I would like to hear from Verizon directly as to what is necessary to have a win-win for the citizens of Rockville.

Sincerely,
Richard A. Gottfried

Theo Anderson, Candidate for Rockville City Council
Mail: theo@vote4anderson.com
Web: http://vote4anderson.com/

Don,

I thank you for taking the time to send in your question to me. I do apologize that I did not get back with you earlier, as after work and on the weekends my days and nights are consumed with putting out flyers, going door-to-door and meeting with the residents of Rockville and putting out signs and such. I'm running a grassroots campaign and simply don't have anyone else to do these things for me and don't have a contribution war chest to reach into to send out mailers and such.

While I won't portend to know all the details of the past Mayor and Council's dealing with FIOS, nor all the nuances surround the disagreements and both parties inability to reach an amicable decision that would have benefited the citizens of Rockville, such as myself, who is sick and tired of paying these inflated monthly bills to COMCAST, as a new council member I will definitely have a different strategy in dealing with FIOS.

I can clearly say, competition is good for the consumer and offers choice. Fiber will come to Rockville and WE will have options. I will work with my fellow Council members and the Mayor to bring ALL parties to the table and not let sidebar meetings and single opinions dominate such a serious and far reaching effect decision. I will call upon my mediation skills and coalition building talents to really vett out the issues so that we can get this process moving forward and so relief as soon as possible can be brought to the deserving citizens of Rockville.

I'm for open competition and choice and will be an honest broker for the citizens of Rockville. It's time for a change and I hope that the citizens will honor me with their confidence and trust that I will make that change for them and everyone that has a vested interest in this matter. Thank you for your great question. I encourage you and others who are interested in hearing more about me and my campaign platform issues to visit my web site at www.vote4anderson.com. I would be honored to have your vote on Nov 6, 2007.

Sincerely,
Theo Anderson

Tracy Pakulniewicz-Chidiac, Candidate for Rockville City Council
Mail: electtracy@gmail.com
Web: http://www.tracyforcouncil.org/

Hi Don -

I'm glad you reached out to me to get my opinion on this - it's very important.

I have to say, I personally would love to have a choice in my cable provider and I think bringing Verizon into the City and giving residents choices would be invaluable. However, I would only support that if Verizon can provide assurances that they will not destroy our infrastructure and would compensate for damages and other costs having them install their infrastructure would put on the City. Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for poor installation of FIOS.

But ultimately, choices are important and I would hope to be able to bring them to Rockville.

Thanks for your question.

Best,
Tracy

Bob Dorsey, Candidate for Rockville City Council
Mail: bob@votedorsey.com
Web: bob dorsey rockville

No statement received.

Eric (Kuohwa) Wang, Candidate for Rockville City Council
Mail: kuohwawang@yahoo.com
Web: None

No statement received.

Rockville Debate

2007-10-24T00:20:00.000-04:00

On Monday, October 22, 2007, I attended a debate among the candidates for mayor and council of Rockville, Maryland. I was curious if fresh blood might be the solution to breaking the logjam presently preventing Rockville citizens from getting Verizon FIOS internet and TV. Given the upcoming November 6 election, this may be an opportunity to effect change by voting.

Before going on, let me clarify that that when I say Rockville, I'm referring to the City of Rockville. It is only in the city limits that residents have been unable to get FIOS. (Outside Rockville, county residents are of course still at the mercy of Verizon's installation schedule but that's a separate issue.)

I don't avidly watch Rockville politics but I have attended council meetings on occasion so I'm familiar with how interesting (to put it politely) their behavior can be. A candidate debate seemed to promise an evening even more entertaining than professional wrestling - with an equal amount of simulated grappling.

Although it was called a debate, it was nothing close. Organized by the Rockville Chamber of Commerce and intended to focus on business interests, 14 candidates stood on stage, each starting with a two-minute position spiel. Questions were then doled out to each candidate round-robin. They had 90 seconds to answer their respective questions. This was repeated again with an additional round of questions. So although questions were solicited from the audience (and I submitted one about Verizon), there was no debate and no opportunity for followup or rebuttal.

My question: Please address why the city has been unable to come to terms with Verizon for FIOS internet and TV service and how your approach would differ.

Although only two candidates got the question on-air, I did also speak to several other candidates afterward and put the question to them as well. All in all, I was disappointed by the responses - only one candidate expressed any grasp of the details of the issue - and even his grasp was tenuous, seemingly accepting of a large portion of the current position held by Larry Giammo, Mayor of Rockville. The best that could be said was that the candidates understood that it was a valid issue.

What I'd like to do at this point is contact all the candidates, give them time to look into the issue and provide their position. We'll then be able to compare them.

For candidates who would like a little background, it will be helpful to read what I wrote earlier about the fee situation.

Besides fees, the other big issue appears to be the provisioning schedule. I have never addressed the schedule before but I understand that the Mayor is still insisting on 100% coverage in 3 years. To be blunt, Rockville is simply wrong to demand this. By comparison, the MC franchise provides staged service areas which factor in density and other issues. That seems much more reasonable.

If Verizon was being granted monopoly status, I would make a different argument but since Verizon is entering the field as a competitor and since Rockville has done little but postured for coming on two years now, Rockville has little basis for its schedule demands. Frankly, if Verizon stuck Rockville at the end of their current schedule, it would be justified. But it's worth looking at Verizon's county-wide schedule that was created during the county-wide negotiation. Notice that Rockville falls in what's termed the Middle Service Area.

According to the MC franchise, the middle service area is provisioned as follows:

3.1.2. Middle Service Area: In the Middle Service Area, the Franchisee shall offer Cable Service to significant numbers of Subscribers in residential areas within three (3) years of the Effective Date of this Franchise, to at least fifty percent (50%) of the residential areas within the Middle Service Area within four (4) years of the Effective Date of this Franchise, and to all residences within the Middle Service Area at which such service is requested within five (5) years ofthe Effective Date of this Franchise, except as specified in Section 3.2. If Franchisee is unable to reach agreement with the City of Rockville to obtain construction permits for the FTTP network under reasonable terms and conditions, as determined by Franchisee, by December 31, 2007, these timeframes shall not apply to Franchisee's provision of Cable Service to residences served by Franchisee's Rockville and Montrose wire centers. Instead, Franchisee shall offer Cable Service to all residences served by the Rockville and Montrose wire centers at which such service is requested within four (4) years of obtaining construction permits for the FTTP network from the City of Rockville, except as specified in Section 3.2.

The referenced section 3.2 deals with density requirements and related issues as I mentioned earlier.

Go ahead and attach a comment to the blog (or email me) if I've overlooked any related issues that the candidates should also address. At the end of the week, I'll contact each candidate for a response.

Hammer This

2007-10-20T01:47:00.000-04:00

Please stop sending me links to the hammer lady! Yes, I know about it. I was even tempted to write about it. But I think there's little to add that hasn't been said already. 450 people posted comments to the Washington Post article about it! How much more is there to say?

For those of you that still haven't heard the story, Mona Shaw, 75, of Manassas VA, a kindly grandmother type right out of central casting, was so mistreated by Comcast - starting with a missed appointment, a botched install, a total loss of service, and finally ending with abuse-in-person at the local Comcast office - that she reached her breaking point and proceeded to go home and return with a hammer to dispense justice, outraged-grandmother style.

Here's a link to the full article by Neely Tucker, Washington Post Staff Writer.

The reporter bent over backward to give equal time to Comcast. In the article, Beth Bacha, a Comcast VP, noted that Comcast has more than 25 million customers, "the overwhelming majority of which are very satistified with their service."

I'd love to see the evidence of that. Their customer base is not that evidence given that many Comcast subscribers live in non-competitive areas. And for customers fortunate enough to live in a competitive area, Comcast may be having a very tough time - especially if my own experience is any guide.

Recently a member of my own community posted a note to our neighborhood mail list. She described how she had been experiencing Comcast outages for two weeks and wanted to know whether other neighbors had been experiencing similar problems.

Ten people replied. (I didn't participate in the discussion - I just watched.) Nine said they had switched to Verizon FIOS and doing so was very easy. Repeatedly, people said FIOS TV and Internet were rock solid using terms like "great", "never a problem", "couldn't be happier" and, from one person, "Switch to FIOS now! Run, run from Comcast."

Oh, the tenth person? He said he was fed up with Comcast and was about to switch. Bottom line: Not one person defended Comcast or admitted to remaining a Comcast customer.

This is remarkable - not just because Comcast has had the market to themselves for so long but because they've had years to work out problems in their operations. And from the statements I hear around the neighborhood and in newspaper articles like the hammer lady, Comcast has done so badly that people are desperate to try anyone else - even at a higher price.

Needless to say, Verizon is finding fertile ground here and, for some people, offering cheaper bottom line prices with faster service to boot. It's hard to see a rosy future for Comcast right now. Or any future.

It all depends on Verizon. While Verizon has already screwed up in the past (poorly trained subcontractors, for example), people appear willing to accept mistakes if they're corrected and if the end result is better.

Verizon has a golden opportunity - a market that already exists and is hungering for an alternative. Why Verizon even bothers to spend money on advertising is beyond me. All Verizon needs to do is have neighbors do its advertising for it. That's certainly what's happening where I live. (PS: Verizon, stop sending me brochures for FIOS!)

As for Comcast, they need to get the message. They've spent a ton of money upgrading their system and making it more robust. But it still doesn't appear to be as robust as Verizon's. And Comcast needs to do something about how they interact with their customers. Donating money to public events and charities isn't what makes customers happy. (Hey, they're great at something, right?)

I hate to write Comcast off entirely. If we've learned anything, we've learned that we need competition in the marketplace. We need both Comcast and Verizon to prosper. Are you listening Comcast?

County Cable Montgomery

2007-08-02T02:47:00.000-04:00

Last week, the Gazette had a curious article about County Cable Montgomery, the PEG channel that televises official county business such as county council hearings.

According to county spokesperson Patrick Lacefield,

"We are wanting to make the cable channel more accessible to folks. ... we’re trying make the programming more interesting and increase its relevance to the public."

According to the Gazette, the county believes that CCM does not "pique the interest of county youngsters" and the county is trying to change this. According to Donna Keating, CCM Program Manager:

"We are trying to be more responsive to our audience. We do not have access to Nielsen ratings, but we know that we have activists that look at the channel because of the number of replays for the council and town hall meetings... We believe that the missing piece is the young people."

All I can say is: Huh?

This is the county's government channel, not Disney or TNT. Why spend money trying to attract a different audience than the one you have? There are dozens of outlets for "young people" already. Actually, there are hundreds. More.

But how many outlets are there for local government functions? Committee meetings? Commissions? Park and Planning hearings? School Board meetings? Community Association Meetings? Court cases?

I would love it if I could see more than the county council meetings. But I can't unless I show up in person. And that's just unrealistic. Frequently, I only find out about something interesting having happened afterward. I can't go to meetings all day just in case something were to happen! Nor can I afford to show up and then wait an hour for the item of interest to me to occur, a frequent issue with council meetings.

But the solution isn't to put all these meetings on the government channel. The solution is to make them all available as podcasts or videocasts.

This would expand the ability to offer more government programming to an unlimited degree. Ten meetings at once? No problem, just generate ten podcasts.

And it would expand accessibility as well. One could argue that TV reaches a broader audience - after all, more people have TV's right? True but misleading. The Cable Office estimates that 230,000 households are capable of receiving the PEG channels. However, Montgomery County's own 2003 census reported that 274,000 households had internet access. And that census is four years old, so it is a sure bet that the number of households with internet access is even higher given the dramatic decrease in computer prices since that time. According to the HDTV Almanac, subscriptions for broadband services increased 21% just this year alone.

And I have to question how many people are even using their TVs to watch the meetings that are currently broadcast. I sure don't use mine. I have never watched the government channel on my TV. Never. But I know plenty of people who watch it at their computers. After all, most of my waking day is spent at work anyway. I don't have a TV on my desk there but I do have a computer. So if I need to watch a government meeting in real-time, it is likely going to be during office hours. I appreciate that some people work from home - indeed, I occasionally telecommute myself but even then, I'm in front of my computer, not my TV.

Without data, we are left to speculate how many people watch the PEGs using their TV. It is accepted wisdom that you can not optimize what you cannot measure. Alas, that doesn't appear to be stopping the county. Indeed, the only statistics cited by Donna are the number of downloads, not the number of TV viewers. Last time I checked, the franchisees do not report PEG viewership. And if the PEG network has any kind of TV viewership statistics, I'd be very surprised because in all the years that I served on the county's cable advisory committee, our requests for this information were repeatedly rebuffed - the claim: Franchisees don't supply the information - and the alternatives (surveys by phone or paper mail) are either too expensive or lack effective response rates.

Besides improved access and a larger selection of material, another advantage to digital distribution is that it is cheaper to the franchisees. And the county pays nothing for the internet feed since it is a benefit of the franchise contracts. But there's no reason to. The packets invariably stay on the local franchise networks since they're delivered only to Montgomery County residents. Thus, the costs to the franchisees are nil.

Back to the issue of the county's concern over the reaching youngsters - I still don't get it. Although demographics are what matter to commercial stations, they should not be of such concern to a government station. Government's job is to release information. Sure, it should also be in a form that is understood. But it doesn't have to be translated into kid-speak. It doesn't have to be dumbed down.

The kids aren't watching anyway. When I was a kid, I used to come home from school and flick on the TV. But I see my own daughter and her friends - all they want is to download videos from YouTube and other content sites. And I can see why. Sure the video quality leaves a lot to be desired but the kids get a much bigger selection to choose from (as well as being able to upload content) and they want that ability. On the whole, it is a much more enjoyable experience and it is the future of video. Not a traditional fixed TV channel.

I do appreciate the TV channel isn't going away. However the county needs to think long and hard about the most effective way to make use of a channel like CCM. According to Patrick, new programming includes more "newsmagazine-ish" material in an attempt to make the programs more interesting. "We have the ability to go live a little more now and be doing more live programming at county events." Don't forget video streaming, Patrick. I've used the County's video streaming capabilities and they're where you should be putting our precious tax dollars. That and digital archives, suitable for podcasts and videocasts. We don't need "newsmagazine-ish" formats. Just give us a high-quality raw feed. Call it CSPAN-Local. If you don't know what I mean, you need to watch CSPAN, Patrick! This is what citizens want, not predigested pablum.

Oh, and about CCM TV? How about leasing it back to the franchisees or sublet it ourselves. Even in the wee hours of the morning, there are bound to be idiotic infomercial producers who are willing to pay good money - money that you could then use to further enhance the podcast/videocasts and video streaming that would truly benefit Montgomery County.

Preserve Your Rights

2007-07-27T01:07:00.000-04:00

Montgomery County officials are warning Comcast customers to study their July bill closely. The July bill contains a notification of an upcoming change to the terms-of-service agreement with an opportunity to refuse within 30 days of receipt of the bill.

In short, Comcast wants you to give up a number of rights you currently have and instead agree to, well, something less.

Specifically, Comcast is changing your terms of service so that you agree to resolve disputes with Comcast through arbitration. In return, you relinquish your "right to pursue any legal remedies against Comcast in court, including claims for negligence, fraud or intentional wrongdoing." Nor can you join in a class-action lawsuit. Plus you accept limits on times in which you may file claims. However, Comcast reserves the right to seek similar remedies in return.

That's fair, right?

Obviously, this is heavily tilted in Comcast's favor. So why would you agree? Because it's in the fine print that no one reads and is structured as an "opt-out" meaning that you agree if you do nothing - which is what most people will do when trying to plow through a stack of bills, each filled with the usual advertising and other extras that are discarded within seconds of slitting open the envelope.

If Comcast really wanted you to know about the change, they would advertise it in the same way that they market all their promotions - using numerous commercials, flyers, and emails.

But their current approach combined with the opt-out technique is unethical. And it appears to violate the franchise agreement as well.

According to the franchise...

Copies of all notices, promotional or special offers sent to Subscribers and any agreements used with Subscribers shall be filed promptly with the County. All forms and notices distributed to customers which describe customer service policies and procedures shall be subject to County approval.

According to the Cable Office, this prior approval was not sought. The county has not stated if it will seek penalties or for Comcast to cancel the change for Montgomery County customers who fail to respond.

I recommend you take no chances and opt-out. To do so online, visit comcast.com/arbitrationoptout and fill out the form. You will need your Comcast account number from your bill. Print a copy of the form before submission and a copy of the acknowledgment after submission.

I'd like to hear if anyone recognized the notification when they were going through their bill. I'm also interested to know if customers on Comcast's automatic bill-pay plan were notified. Anyone? [sound of crickets]

Free WiFi In Rockville

2007-07-01T00:08:00.000-04:00

Free Broadband For Someone

Last week, AEPCO, (Advanced Engineering and Planning Corporation, Inc., of Gaithersburg, MD) agreed to provide free WiFi to the new town center of Rockville. If you haven't visited the location, you must. For a mix of shopping and culture, it's quite pretty. Although it doesn't measure up to the walking districts of towns and cities throughout Europe, it's a huge step up for anything that Rockville has had in the past. And kudos to putting the library right in the center. (But I will add my voice to those against naming it after a politician.)

No map has been made available, but the vague description suggests that the WiFi footprint will be similar to what is already available in Silver Spring. Here is the announcement from the city of Rockville.

Eventually, AEPCO plans to install WiFi service elsewhere in Rockville (perhaps even throughout) but residents will have to pay for the expanded service area. No prices have been made available. The announcement also notes "will allow for paid subscriptions for residents and businesses that want to have a higher bandwidth and a higher quality of service for indoor areas within Town Square." So, it will be a low-bandwidth connection. And users will need to re-authenticate (the announcement mentions an initial splash screen with advertising) periodically, making lengthy connections (e.g., substantial downloads) unlikely with the free service.

But for Rockville residents, this is a good thing. Not only does it make the town center more attractive but it suggests that there will be competition for internet service in Rockville. But before we start celebrating, note the time schedule: AEPCO has indicated that citywide expansion could occur within 24 months after service begins in Town Square. Within? Why does that sound like speeds up to 5Mb!

Free Broadband For Everyone

I live next to Glen Echo, the smallest town in Montgomery County (population: 221). It's a cozy place (how many towns have their own 86-year old carousel and Wurlitzer band organ?) and I frequently bike through it and always enjoy reading their newspaper, the Echo.

The current edition of the Echo has a curious item - the town was recently approached by the Coalition for Free Broadband and asked to write a letter to the FCC supporting the Coalition's proposal - that a nationwide network be established for free wireless internet access. The company behind this, M2Z Networks, claims that with 20MHz of currently-unused spectrum, they can offer "fast, free and family friendly broadband to 95 percent of the US population within ten years and pay 5% of gross revenues from its subscription services [insert lots of handwaving here].

M2Z has an application for the spectrum pending before the FCC and are looking for support. To my surprise, the Echo article says that "the Montgomery County Council and County Executive have agreed to support the Coalition's proposal."

Anyone know any more about this?

New Committee Representatives

2007-04-25T18:02:00.000-04:00

The following citizens have been nominated by the County Executive to serve on the Cable and Communications Advisory Committee. The terms are three years and unpaid.

LeRoy Oettinger
Benjamin Wu
David Friedman
Mark Berman
Kelly Cameron

I know of David Friedman, as he has provided testimony at communications-related hearings before the county. I don't recall having seen any others at any CCAC-related meetings, so my hopes are not high that they have a serious interest and will make useful contributions. Some past members have served simply for resumé padding or, from all that I can tell, want of something else to do with their evenings.

If you know of any reason why any of them would be inappropriate to represent your interests, contact the County Executive and County Council.

The following two CCAC members have been nominated for another term.

Suzanne Weiss
Kernan Chaisson

Suzanne is presently the CCAC chair. Kernan has been the Rockville representative to the CCAC for over 7 years already. Doesn't anyone else in Rockville have an interest in telecommunications?

The new appointments and the re-appointments are scheduled to be confirmed by the County Council on May 8, 2007.

Waiting For Pepco

2007-04-23T02:09:00.000-04:00

During last week's windstorms, I had some free time on my hands - the power was out and my uninterruptible power supply had long since run out of backup juice. According to the one remaining electro-mechanical clock in my house, I could see the time the power had gone out: 1:50pm

Around the time I got home in the evening, it was already nightfall. But I was pleased to see several crews with bucket trucks on my street. Naturally, I walked over to them and asked what was going on. (I planned to delicately work my way up to the real question: When would power be restored?)

They said "Waiting for Pepco." Shortly, several Pepco trucks showed and surveyed the scene: a tree had fallen across the street bringing down the support arms that had once been at the top of the pole. Everything that had been up there was now down here.

Actually the wires were suspended about 7 feet above the road. The tree itself was near horizontal, resting on the utility lines. Blithely, auto drivers continued to drive underneath it - after passing through yellow Do Not Cross tape as well.

After 10 minutes of discussion, the Pepco guys announced that everyone should go home and return in the morning. They gave several reasons why: 1) they had been working too many hours (16 hours) and needed a break, and 2) it was a huge job, and 3) it would be much safer to do this kind of work during the day. Left unsaid was that 4) it wasn't an emergency - at least not in their eyes.

So the ten or so people got back in their trucks and took off. This was around 10pm.

At this point, I decided I'd enjoy a little night air and see how many other homes were affected. So I walked around my neighborhood. Later, I created a map. You can follow it as I relate the rest of the story.

I walked north on Brickyard and then doubled back on Masters. Rounding a bend, I encountered a Comcast crew on River Falls. They were setting up a generator to power their equipment. I watched as they opened a lawn box and saw that it contained what appeared to be three car batteries. They claimed it was enough to provide power through glitches and short outages ("a few hours"). I asked them what the point of the generator was, given that we were in a sea of blackness - homes with no power -- TVs and computers that couldn't possibly be working even if the signal was there. They pointed out that their equipment served some homes further down Stable that still had power - although when I asked them how they could tell, they admitted they were just guessing. However, they added that customers using phones served by Comcast could use them without power to the home - since they can run for 8 hours on battery backup. I pointed out that the outage had started at least that long ago. So any phones that worked initially would likely not be working now. They shrugged their shoulders and continued hooking the generator up. They said the generator would run about 18 hours before needing refueling.

I continued walking; met a guy on Stable who was doing some late night repair. I was a bit concerned that he wasn't just robbing homes since house alarm batteries were surely dead as well by now and his truck was stuffed to the gills with "stuff". But he said he had just come from Home Depot and couldn't unload his truck because his garage door opener was electric. Eventually he convinced me and while we chatted, he handed me some ice cream sandwiches - they were already melting and probably wouldn't fare too well even inside his dead freezer. Good neighbor!

I walked over to MacArthur looking for more dead homes thinking I'd walk up Brickyard and get to see the tree from the south side. Two more tree crews were there - different ones than before. The guys in the first truck were taking a nap. I knocked on the window of the other truck. They told me there were waiting for Pepco. (At this point, I realized that it rhymes with "Waiting for Godot".) I pointed out that they might be waiting a long time given what the Pepco guys had told me earlier about coming back the following morning. I suggested they call Pepco but the the new guys said they work for the county (contractors, of course) so they don't talk directly to Pepco and we then had a long conversation during which I tried to get them to call their supervisor who surely could call Pepco and .... They didn't seem to be too enthused about getting the situation straightened out: "Hey, we're getting paid even if it's just to sit here." Probably with some overtime, too. (The Comcast guys said they prefer to work nights because they get a pay differential for working night hours.)

I walked over to Darmuid Green at this point but the outage didn't go far in. As I turned back, I saw the tree crew drive off. Perhaps they finally decided to call? As I was about to turn in, I saw another crew at Brickyard and Hackamore. It was 12:15am and I found the same Comcast crew, hooking up another generator. I was pretty surprised because I felt like I had been walking for hours (and I left their first site after they did) and yet according to them, this was the only other generator in the neighborhood that had been deployed.

Total homes without electricity: 116 (my estimate)

The next morning (Friday), I woke to ... no electricity and 5 trucks parked on the street including a Verizon truck. One crew told me they were there to put the wires back up but, sigh, had to wait for (can you guess?) Pepco to ground everything. I found that very surprising as the previous night's Pepco crew had done that - at least that's what they said. And it stands to reason, they wouldn't leave with anything unsafe. However, the morning crews didn't believe me and said they would just wait for Pepco.

While continuing to wait for Pepco, I asked the Verizon technician whether he had installed any temporary generators like Comcast. He said they weren't needed - there's no electrical equipment in their boxes - each home has its own individual fiber running all the way back to their central offices.

I posted some of these same notes to my neighborhood mail list and asked whether residents were able to make phone calls on their Comcast Digital Voice or Verizon FIOS phones after their electricity went out. I got 8 responses. 7 said their Verizon FIOS phones continued working through the entire outage - they all pointed out that they had phones that ran off the power from the phone line. 1 neighbor said her FIOS service went down. She didn't respond when I asked about her phone. I wonder how clearly Verizon explains the customer's own responsibilities in an outage. In any case, I think this is very good news for Verizon, even more so because I understand the batteries in the Verizon's UPS are only rated for 4-8 hours, yet they evidentally powered the customer equipment for much longer. Our outage lasted 25 hours. Of course, longer than that and customers might be wishing for their copper back. (By the way, one of my neighbors somehow convinced Verizon to give him FIOS and let him keep his copper phone lines.)

Comcast on the other hand didn't fare so well. Not because people reported outages. Not because Comcast had to roll a truck to install generators everywhere power was out. And not because Comcast must have to maintain a huge number of generators sitting in a warehouse somewhere. No, the reason Comcast didn't fare so well is because not a single person in that 116 house area reported having Comcast Digital Voice service.

April Fools

2007-04-01T20:41:00.000-04:00

A few tidbits to enjoy in honor of April 1.

An alternative for everyone waiting for FIOS TV ...

http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html

And two behind the scenes views of our favorite call centers ...

http://www.callcentermovie.com
http://www.deadtroll.com/video/helldeskcable.html

Mary Had A Little ... Late Fee

2007-02-18T08:58:00.000-05:00

Hopefully at least one person will benefit from today's story. Maybe more.

Like many retirees, my parents travel for months at a time. When they do, they redirect their US Mail to me. I open it, dial their cell phone and tell them which bills have arrived and for how much. They pay the bills over the web. This system works pretty well.

But not always.

Best Effort

As I was going through my parents redirected mail recently, I found a bill payment to Comcast. That's right - a bill payment TO Comcast. Not from my parents but from one Mary Hagan of Bensalem PA.

Why would Mary Hagan's payment to Comcast end up in my parent's mailbox? Her payment was addressed to Box 3005 in Southeastern, PA - so the payment went in exactly the opposite direction that it should have - northeast instead of southwest - ending roughly 50 miles off.

Could she have made a mistake writing the Comcast address? Nope. She used the Comcast-provided payment coupon with its preprinted address - which showed through the appropriate opening in the Comcast-provided envelope.

Ok, so USPS made a mistake. Mistakes happen. But USPS then forwarded the mail to me in Potomac, Maryland. Huh?

The Post Office uses barcodes to expedite routing. But it wasn't an error in creating the barcode because Comcast preprints their own barcode on their payment coupon. So the Post Office had to misroute the correctly-barcoded envelope twice and maybe even more as it went through several post offices from PA to MD by way of NJ.

So here I was with some Comcast customer's bill payment in hand. My first thought was to put it back in the mail. (As Jon Stewart recently said about George Bush's latest plan for Iraq, "Hey, everyone deserves a seventh chance.")

But then I took a closer look at the due date and saw that it had already passed (USPS forwarding takes time to get wrong) so even if I sent it back the day I received it, late charges would still be due.

I also considered calling Comcast but decided against it. Comcast has never been one to talk with you about other customer's accounts (rightfully so).

Dropping it in the garbage and letting the customer take the hit of the late fee seemed pretty reasonable at that point. Was it worth my time and effort to send it back to Mary so she'd have evidence to tell Comcast that it wasn't her fault it was late? Would Comcast even accept that excuse?

Around here, Comcast's late fee is $4/month. Nope, not worth mailing it back to Mary. I did however call her up - whitepages.com yielded her phone number readily enough. I figured I'd suggest she try to get the late fee waived - perhaps they would if she could only get Comcast to look at my blog! And I also wanted to ask her a few other questions - such as whether it had ever happened before.

So I called her number and ... well, whoever answered the phone gave me a very chilly reception. I guess he figured I was a solicitor or pollster offering "free money" or something that sounded close to it. I don't blame him.

Anyway, I tried. If anyone reads this who knows Mary (unlikely) or lives near Bensalem (a bit less unlikely) - perhaps you could let her know that she should request Comcast waive her late fee (I already know the Post Office won't cover it) since it wasn't her fault - or at worst, find a way to pay it without relying on the Post Office in the future.

No, I'm not suggesting using Comcast's offer to extract funds directly from one's checking account. As I've said before, Comcast isn't trustworthy enough for that. (See Automatic Billing - Convenience That Will Cost You.) But online billpay from a bank or a service like Quicken or Money sounds much more reliable.

Better yet, since I know there are Comcast officials who read this blog, perhaps they could take it upon themselves to waive Mary's late fee - or track down the Comcast official in Mary's region who can do so.

PS: Why did I say earlier that I know the Post Office won't cover it? Because first class mail is a best effort service. Now where have I heard that phrase before?!

Quarterly Review

2007-02-11T23:46:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned earlier, the county's MFP committee was scheduled to review the performance of the cable franchises.

I was unable to attend so I plowed through the packet - 42 pages of the same stuff as usual. I already mentioned in my all-too-verbose report (Rubberstamp This) from last week that Comcast was being fined. Some new statistics were mentioned but in the interest of brevity, I'll merely mention that Comcast failed to turn in all the 4th quarter data so no one can even tell whether or not they're in compliance. However Comcast finally did turn in data (late!) for the 3rd quarter showing it was out of compliance in all customer service areas. Most notable is the requirement to repair within 24 hours - Comcast was below the 95% level required by the franchise.

RCN turned in its 4th quarter data on time and was in compliance. It received a warning for being out of compliance in the 3rd quarter. (In contrast, Comcast has been out of compliance long enough to start being assessed fines. See my earlier report for more detail.)

Some positive news: Complaints about Comcast to the Cable Office were down 44% in the 4th quarter with, ahem, only 282 complaints. In contrast RCN's complaint level nearly doubled in the 4th quarter. Of course, the absolute figures are significant - Comcast had 282 complaints, RCN 16. The largest number of Comcast complaints were service-related. RCN billing-related.

Construction

In the 4th quarter, county inspectors reported 2298 construction violations in the Comcast cable plant. (Construction violations include such things as improper grounding, missing guy wires, missing pedestal covers, and exposed temporary underground cables in rights-of-way. Note that the entire plant is not inspected in each quarter.) At the end of the year, 1447 remained unfixed. That's an astounding 63%.

RCN: 526 construction violations. For the entire year, 2114 remain unfixed. If Comcast was astounding at 63% remaining unfixed for the year, RCN is super-astounding at 87%. Congratulations you two!

I'll Stick With Analog, Thank You

Earlier, I mocked a Comcast representative for suggesting that pixelation problems in the digital channels were not easily solvable. People are still complaining about these. And although the complaint levels have gone down, the county's outside consultant, Columbia Telecommunications Corp, says that this so-called tiling remains an ongoing problem. CTC asserts that these complaints are issues in the local wiring and have recommended that Comcast replace customer drops as each is converted from analog to digital. If problems remain, CTC recommends Comcast send technicians that are trained to diagnose and fix such problems.

Bottom line: The problems are diagnosable. Are fixable. (But here's the rub...) With trained technicians.

Oh, and if you don't complain, don't expect your problems to clear up.

The New Blogger

2007-02-11T22:55:00.000-05:00

This is a test of Google's new blogging software. That's all it is. This is the last sentence in the test.

Rubberstamp This

2007-01-29T19:09:00.000-05:00

This past Wednesday (Jan 24, 2007), I attended a meeting of the Cable and Communications Advisory Committee (CCAC) for Montgomery County, Maryland. This is a meeting of citizens who volunteer to meet once a month to discuss cable-related issues and advise the County Executive.

As I've said before, it's difficult to tell whether the committee has an impact any more. As long as I've been writing this blog, I've encountered nothing to justify its existence. Despite this, 14 people felt motivated enough to answer the call to fill four open seats on the committee. Their term starts in November of ... 2006. A Cable Office official speculated the seats might be filled by April - in other words, 6 months late.

Note that some citizens apply for many committees simultaneously even though they may only serve on one committee at a time. I guess people figure that it's nice to be on a committee, any committee. So it's unclear which if any applicants are really interested in cable issues and which are merely tired of bitching that Verizon isn't on their street yet. The committee complained about this too and asked the Cable Office if the Executive had standards that could be imposed to winnow down the list of applicants. The Cable Office said no. Ergo, 14 full interviews coming up.

You can tell that applicants don't have a clue when they've never even bothered to attend a meeting before applying. One applicant joined me in attending the meeting (hi Art!) and said he found it worthwhile. I do agree that it's worthwhile to attend as a guest - I learn a fair amount from the briefings given monthly by officials such as the MC Cable Administrator. However, it shouldn't require a committee to receive these briefings. News should be promptly made public via the web.

This very idea - making news available promptly - was made, albeit indirectly, several times during the meeting. For instance, the committee asked if the Cable Office could issue press releases when issuing fines against franchisees. Donna Keating, acting Cable Administrator, said that the Cable Office doesn't issue press releases. Actually, the Cable Office does make a fair amount of information available online - although I'd like to see more. But lacking is any kind of notification mechanism to let citizens know when information has been made available. I've been asking the Cable Office for this for 6 years. Even a simple email list would be better than what we have now (i.e., nothing).

This is all rather sad for a committee with Communications in its name. As far as I know, the committee itself doesn't even have a mail list. Nor are there public archives of the meetings in either video or written form. I went so far as to create a mail list six years ago as a yahoo group, started posting the committee minutes and other documents to it, and the committee used it for a year until the Cable Office decided that they wanted direct control. That was the end of it. The Cable Office assured me that the county's IT department would provide an official mail list and webspace. Over the years, the committee occasionally queried Alisoun Moore, MC CIO, on the status of that request. No response was ever heard. The latest news is that Alisoun has stepped down and the county is in search of a new CIO. Anyone interested? Perhaps someone who knows about mail lists? RSS? Web pages? Videos? Communication? It's not that hard, is it?

Budget

Perhaps the only activity with the potential for real work that regularly faces the committee is the opportunity to weigh in on the cable budget. The cable budget is roughly $15 million. This supports the PEG channels, the Cable Office, the inspectors, the lawyers and the county network ("I-Net" or "institutional network"). The majority of the money for this comes from the franchise fees paid by cable TV customers.

Amy Wilson of the Cable Office gave the briefing on the budget. Briefing is an apt word because it was all too brief. She provided no new numbers but rather the old estimates from last year and asked for comments before they were sent back to Executive Leggett and on to the Council. But her deadline was February 5, meaning 7 business days. The committee has never been able to turn things around so quickly - so after making a show of staring at the spreadsheets for a minute and plaintively asking for guidance from the Cable Office (which refused), the committee agreed to rubberstamp the existing numbers without debate and provide a letter supporting the old figures in the budget - figures which presumably won't be the ones issued by the Executive. (The budget subcommittee nominally left the door open for last minute observations in the remaining few days but I don't see that happening.) Bottom line: Nominal budgetary support without justification. Or in more familiar terms: Taxation without (meaningful) representation.

Amy pointed out that the Executive asked the Cable Office for two budgets: one capable of sustaining existing operations and a version with a 5% cut. The Cable Office didn't share where the 5% might come from nor did the committee ask.

Personnel Changes

Besides a new CIO, there are a few other changes in personnel worth mentioning: Jane Lawton, MC Cable Administrator is off to Annapolis again as a Delegate for District 18. She is expected back mid-April. In her stead as Acting Cable Administrator is Donna Keating who normally takes care of the G (Government) of the PEG channels.

Suzanne Weiss is the new chair of the CCAC. Suzanne appears to be continuing the same procedures created by outgoing chair Shep Bostin. The most unfortunate of these is to restrict public questions until the end of the meeting - when context has been lost, when visiting officials have left, and committee members are half out the door as well. Suzanne officially ended the committee's secretarial position. I suppose it was a formality but one that bears mentioning because the Cable Office is in charge of recording the committee minutes, a practice which I think inappropriate given that the committee sometimes has very different opinions than those of the Cable Office about what is important and what is not.

Comcast has a new VP of government affairs. I don't know the name but this person will be responsible for both Montgomery and Frederick. Is the Frederick cable system (which includes the old Adelphia franchise) in good shape? What's the regulatory environment there - does anyone know?

The new Comcast VP asked to attend the next CCAC meeting. Years ago, it used to be common for Comcast and RCN VPs to attend CCAC meetings and give status reports and take questions. I can only assume that the representatives realized that it didn't matter whether or not they came - reporters didn't come, the committee had no power, and the meetings frequently became ugly venting sessions by the members - so why bother? Anyone want to participate in a pool for the number of meetings the new Comcast VP attends before deciding Wednesday evenings are better spent elsewhere? (PS: RCN reps haven't shown up for a long time. And Verizon reps have yet to show up.)

Finally, Sonya Healey has moved on from her position as the council staffmember responsible for cable matters. I'm sorry to see Sonya leave as she did an excellent job. She prepared the council briefing packets - very thorough and well written. She was happy to talk or email whenever citizens wanted and provide whatever they requested. And she regularly emailed briefing packets and agenda in advance, providing alerts for items of significance that were upcoming. She was the ideal of a county employee. I understand Sonya's new position is chief of staff for Councilmember Ervin. Ervin in turn worked in a similar position herself prior to winning election to the Council so perhaps Sonya is following in her footsteps. Sounds good to me!

Rate Increases

All of the franchisees (Verizon, Comcast, and RCN) have recently announced price hikes in their TV rates. This seemed to surprise committee members: Wasn't competition supposed to hold down rates? However their analysis was superficial. There are all sorts of significant factors that belie the rates themselves. The fact is that despite rate increases that exceed CPI increases and a lack of a la carte channels, there are still good choices out there for the consumer willing to hunt them down. For instance, Verizon's new rates are still significantly below Comcast's. Verizon offers a broader selection of channels and HD programming as well. Satellite is also very competitive. And one poster to the dslreports forum claims that Comcast is offering HBO free for the year. (Send me email or post a note here, if you are also able to get free HBO merely by asking.)

Comcast appears to be resting on its laurels, rotted as they are, and enjoying the slow speed of Verizon's deployment as well as the resistance of consumers to try satellite, and the confusion of the marketplace, particularly with respect to higher tiers such as HD (where providers make a huge profit). A good article about the complexities of the local marketplace appeared in this week's Washington Post in which Howard Bryant and Rob Pegoraro described the difficulties and disappointments of the choices. I mentioned recently how the (ostensibly) technically superior service of Verizon could still be unacceptable - giving my own case as an example.

Apart from complaints about the inability to get Verizon TV (only available to 75000 homes in MC so far), the committee spent more of its time grousing about Comcast. Complaints included poor analog picture quality, poor audio quality, poor HD quality, and so on. Cable Office staffer Marjorie Williams described how disappointed she was in her own Comcast service, specifically pointing out that on some channels, she could detect little difference between digital and analog quality. Verizon TV, on the other hand, seems to be delivering on quality. Everyone to whom I've spoken is quite happy with what they're seeing. Margie went on to say that the early complaints received by the office about Verizon were entirely about billing. No service complaints and no installation complaints. (If you're reading this and have complaints that aren't being resolved by Verizon, please file them with the county.) Complaints are understandable with a brand new service. We won't know the true extent of them until the council's MFP review at the end of Q1. (Note: The Q4 review will be Feb 5, 2007.)

Meanwhile, Comcast is being fined again by the county for violations of the customer service provisions of the franchise related to telephone answering time in the 4th quarter of 2006. The new fine is roughly $12K. As one member observed, this is well below the cost of hiring another person to answer phones so it's not surprising that Comcast would gladly pay the fine rather than avoid it by increasing staff.

Consumer Rights Brochure

I missed the last two committee meetings and so was surprised to see the committee continuing to flagellate itself over the cable consumer rights brochure. To recap, this is a one-page brochure that I drafted years ago and made the mistake of believing the committee could agree to publish with minimal additional work. Since then, the brochure proceeds to come up at each meeting: yet a new draft is shown, members recommend changes, ask what the hell it is or what it means, some condemn it as incomprehensible, and discuss yet again how it should be distributed. And the committee has also been jerked around by the county lawyers who evidentally feel there is something illegal or immoral about the whole thing. This month the committee reported being rebuffed by a representative of the Office of Consumer Protection which publishes a lot of similar brochures and, when asked, declined to help instead suggesting that the committee take responsibility itself.

CCAC Vice-Chair Joy Ragsdale observed that one Don Libes had made a version of the brochure complete with county logo available on a website which would lead to confusion between it and the official one. I doubt that - not only is much of the text different but so is the title! In any case, it's surely a moot point. The latest move by the committee was to turn the whole thing over to the Cable Office - which surely means a final death - because the Cable Office always wanted to kill the brochure. There is no one in the Cable Office who has a burning desired to invest any effort in the brochure.

The committee didn't ask for my opinion on any of these issues - even though I was sitting right there as they continued to throw my name around. Note: Since 2006, members of the public have not been allowed to speak unless specifically called on by the committee. If they had, I would've suggested they drop the whole thing and return to the useful parts of the meeting - the briefings by the Cable Office and other visiting officials.

PEGs

Richard Turner, Executive Director of Montgomery Community Television, gave a status report about the PEG channels. Alas, he did not provide an update on MCT so my understanding of what's going on there is limited to what appeared in the draft minutes of the previous committee minutes. To wit:

Jane met with Richard Turner and Theresa Cameron regarding the MCT volunteers. The situation is still very delicate since MCT Volunteers who have been with MCT for years are attempting a take over by regaining board seats with the intention of remoing the current executive director. An arbitrator is now in place to assist with resolving the issues.

I have no idea what that really means but at the request of committee member Yen-Ju Chen, herself an ex-PEG official, the "delicate" sentence was stripped from the official minutes.

If there is further interest in the PEGs, I'd like to cover what they're doing (and why they need so much money!) to do it. Let me know if you'd like to read more about the PEGs. And tell me which PEG shows you watch. Thanks!

And We Are Here To Help

2007-01-04T02:15:00.000-05:00

Montgomery County's MFP committee will be holding a quarterly hearing on the county's cable franchisees. This will be the first meeting with Verizon as an official franchisee. Are we still in the honeymoon? We'll find out. February 5 at 9am on the 7th floor of the Council Office building.

My guess is that the honeymoon is still on (and the council has its hands full of other problems) but I've heard a lot of complaints from people waiting to get fiber and not understanding that, well, it takes time. And Verizon, despite wanting to roll out service as quickly as possible, has plenty of time built into the franchise. Please calm down folks!

I've got my own problems. I've become dismayed to find - as I had feared all along - that I cannot get any kind of device with which I can readily schedule recordings of FIOS TV on my computer. I really don't want to get a separate DVR and display. Might I end up with FIOS for internet and Comcast for TV? Egad. And please don't tell me the quality of FIOS TV is so much better. Or that it costs more this way. I accept this. Or do I. This is so frustrating.

Volunteers Wanted

The County is looking for citizen volunteers to serve on the Telecommunications Advisory Committee (TAC). This committee advises the County Executive and County Council. Well that was always the theory anyway. Very little advising has taken place in the years that I've been observing the committee. For example, the TAC was not invited to any of the Verizon negotations or strategy sessions held by the Executive.

Just about everyone involved shares some of the blame for lack of communication. (Well, the council wasn't invited either so I can't blame them too much.) I've explained the problems several times before so I won't repeat them again. (Browse the archives.) Hopefully, new members will be more informed and willing to work. And perhaps the new Executive will be more interested in the committee's opinions.

There are five openings on the committee. Four members are eligible to apply for a second term. But I would assume that most of them won't.

If you have any questions about the committee, please post them here and I'll answer them. And attend the meetings to see what goes on. Hmm, looks like the Cable Office hasn't been updating their online calendar. Sigh. Assuming they stick to the usual schedule (3rd Wednesday of each month), the next TAC meeting should be January 17, 2007. However, I see the official solicitation for new members says that meetings are on the "forth (sic) Wednesday evening of each month." A new strategy to keep attendance down?

Incidentally, if you'd like to serve on another committee, here's the full list of openings. Hmm, I just tried clicking on it and got Windows NT Error number 2 occurred. (And I know it's not my computer since I'm not using Windows!) Maybe you'll have better luck.

Avoid Free Email

2006-12-27T14:08:00.000-05:00

Christmas is over. I can go back to delivering uncheery news. Here goes.

Montgomery County's cable franchisees provide customers with "free" email and "free" email addresses. Great! Or is it? Let's look at these two offerings one at a time.

Free Email Addresses

By "free" email addresses, I mean addresses such as chocoholic@comcast.net or poodlefan@verizon.net. The domain names (comcast.net and verizon.net) show they are provided by a franchisee. I strongly recommend avoiding such addresses for your own use. These addresses tie you to the franchisee so that if you decide to change from one (oh let's say for example, Comcast) to another (gosh, let's say Verizon), you have a huge problem in front of you. There's no easy way to get all of your friends, colleagues, and family to use your new email. It's a hassle for you and it's a hassle for them. And you're probably on lots of email lists, too. Providers cannot be depended on to forward email after you close your account and get a new email address. So any mail that goes to the old address is lost to you.

Even worse are all the services that do authentication by reachability: You're authenticated if and only if you can receive email at the address you used when you originally signed up. I've got oodles of such accounts. There's no way to easily update all of these accounts. Apart from the number of them, some of the services using this technique make it very tricky to change email addresses.

I am particularly surprised when I see people using such addresses as part of their business. That's just asking for trouble - and having to reprint business cards or letterhead is the least of the problems. All the places on the web that have that old email address are essentially set in stone. There's just no way to get all the search engines on the web to give up a pointer to an old email address. If, for example, your business as a dance teacher received a favorable mention in the Gazette, it will be impossible to get the Gazette to change their archives to reflect your new address.

I know a lot of people switching from Comcast to Verizon and this is exactly the pain that they are going through. (And perhaps they'll be going through the opposite problem next year.) And this is why companies like AOL, offering an otherwise uncompetitive service, have been able to keep customers as long as they have. Because they own the email addresses that so many people have used for years are loath to give up. AOL recently recanted on this policy - AOL now allows non-customers to have AOL addresses - in an effort to stem the loss of customers by the millions - so ex-customers can keep their old AOL email addresses.

Even if you're happy with your provider or just decide it's easier not to switch to avoid such problems, you could still run into the same problems. For instance, cable companies go out of business or get bought out. Even Comcast - which has been stable here in Montgomery County, MD - has a record of switching domains. Comcast has bought several other franchises (e.g., Adelphia, Telemedia), forcing those users to switch to a comcast.net mail address. And Comcast has sold or traded franchises in other areas (e.g., Time-Warner), with users having to give up their comcast.net mail addresses. Such a scenario could definitely happen here.

Even without these franchise swaps, email addresses can be taken back by the provider. A number of reasons are plausible - from claims about spamming to demands by other users who happen to have clout. Bottom line: You don't own these mail addresses. (The provider does.) You don't even rent them. (They're "free," remember?) There is nothing in the terms-of-service (e.g., Comcast TOS) preventing you from losing your email address.

The Solution

Buy an email address thereby giving you control over it. It doesn't take very much money to buy a domain with lots of email addresses. For example, google, yahoo, and godaddy offer domains from $10 or less a year. Some, such as active-domain.com include an unlimited number of email addresses. There are many other providers that offer similar service and rates. (If you know of better deals with quality providers, please post them.)

Recognize that these email addresses are forwarding addresses. You can advertise your personalized email address but the email gets forwarded to some other service. So people may email me at don@libes.com but that is just a forwarding address that sends mail on to my mail provider - which might be Yahoo mail, Gmail, or some other provider (see below). If your mail provider, say, Google, takes back your account or you depart, say, Comcast, you can simply get a new account somewhere else and redirect your forwarding address to it. Note that I'm not recommending Google or Yahoo for mail; I'm just using them as examples here.

Having your own domain for mail forwarding is excellent and inexpensive but it's only half of the solution. Now the other half...

Free Email

A counterpart to free addresses is the free email offered by providers. By email, I mean the actual process of sending mail, receiving mail, and storing mail. Some providers also provide other services - such as spam filtering.

Can you guess what I'm going to say next? Avoid using the email service offered "for free!" by your internet service provider.

Before I get into the whys and wherefores, you're probably noticing how much I harp on the "free!" clause. Of course, we know they're not really free. Obviously, someone is paying for them. Could it be, uh, you and me? What the companies mean when they use the term free is really bundled. You are forced to pay for it and the cost is hidden, buried within your other fees (along with "free" webspace, "free" videophone service, "free" game portals, and so on). But when it is "free" in this sense, it's generally of minimal quality; whatever the provider can offer and still stick it in advertising copy with a straight face. Maybe some asterisks will help.

What do I mean by minimal quality? Well, for starters, there are few stated performance levels. No explanations of quality. No real guarantees. Just implied promises - most of which you, the wishful customer, read into it.

In the Comcast forum at dslreports.com, I have seen repeated reports of:

mail delivered after significant delays
undelivered mail
problems with their spam filtering
problems related to unadvertised limits
problems with other sites classifying Comcast as a provider of spam resulting in delays or blockages

Mail delays do not necessarily produce warning messages nor are complete failures necessarily reported to customers.

I have not followed Verizon's email service for as long but I have no reason to believe it would be any better - for much the same reason - it is offered as a freebie. Indeed, within the past few months, there have been outages reported (also at dslreports.com) of Verizon's email service as well.

If you ask in just the right way, you may get credit on your bill for outages but such credits aren't guaranteed. There's no law requiring it nor is there anything in your contract to compel it. And even if you get credit, will it make up for the loss of service?

I've heard people claim "Personal email is not that important to me." Huh? Why even bother sending email if you're willing to accept that it won't be delivered? Or that you won't get the reply? Or that your email may disappear from your inbox?

I believe email’s use for telecommuting, communicating with businesses, or just interacting with friends and family, to be very important. Unfortunately, there are no organizations that monitor or regulate email performance. This means that any claims made by your provider should be viewed skeptically. And even if literally true, you need to read between the lines and think about the implications.

There are many providers who have mail standards and good records to match. For instance, fastmail.fm and tuffmail are popular with some of my friends (although I don't use either myself). I hesitate to recommend my own provider or to even give specific recommendations because your choice will depend on numerous factors which differ from one provider to another. Most people focus on price and disk space limits. I give much more weight to reliability and support for IMAP. Other important attributes include bandwidth limits, spam/virus filtering, privacy, security, and timely status reports. Infinite Ink has a discussion of quality measures for IMAP providers that you may find helpful. If you know of a similar listing of POP providers or a forum in which mail service providers are discussed, I'd like to hear it.

Bottom line: Don't be surprised by disappointing (but "free!") email service from your cable provider. Expect to pay for quality mail service. Recognize the consequences of your choices in email providers. Anyone requiring a particular level of email service should arrange for email service from a provider which can provide a written performance standard and can demonstrate a record of timely delivery and reliable service.

Unanimous

2006-11-30T13:58:00.000-05:00

As I predicted, the Verizon franchise was approved on Tuesday (November 28, 2006). With the full council present instead of just three MFP committee members, the same questions were asked; the same responses were given. The very same responses were also given to new questions. For example, one councilmember asked how Verizon was able to buy out of the unlimited future obligations to provide free access to many agencies that Comcast is required to do.

Here's my paraphrase of that interchange between Jerry Pasternak, Special Assistant to the County Executive and Councilmember Steve Silverman:

Steve: I can understand that Verizon bought us off, but 1 million? My dog could've come up with that number.
Jerry: < insert handwaving here >
Steve: As long as you're not going to explain how you came up with that obviously arbitrary figure, can't we bleed them for more?

My paraphrase of Jerry's response is terse but otherwise accurate. His actual words were remarkably close to those that I quoted on Monday so I won't repeat them.

And with that ("that" meaning 10 minutes of decent discussion and 30 minutes of unnecessary hot council air and protocol), the franchise was passed. No last minute amendments. Unanimous.

Immediate Future

I've heard conflicting statements as to when it would be possible to order service. A Gazette article appears to suggest that, although approved, the franchise has yet to be signed by the council president but availability should follow immediately. The Verizon's press release says "by the end of December." The latter makes the most sense. However, availability will be rolled out in stages across the county with requirements for some areas on the order of years. For instance, as I understand the section applying to Rockville, even if they get approval from the City, Verizon has three years to offer service there. And if the issue isn't settled by the end of this year, the limit is pushed back to four years. (If the final franchise is different, I'll correct this as soon as I find out.)

Of course, these are just limits and, while legal, will probably be moot in the future. For example, the county could let Verizon take longer if things don't go well (RCN being an example of this). Alternatively, Verizon could act more quickly on its own. For now, Verizon promised availability to 75,000 homes as of January 1 2007 and asserted that they would have the staff - including bringing personnel from other regions - to deliver on that promise. Of course, that presumably refers only to the Initial Service Area described in the franchise. As for actually getting TV service installed - according to Lori Edwards' testimony, the franchise allows seven days for the installation of an ONT at the house and seven more days to turn on the service. So unless you have Verizon's internet service already, you can expect to wait a while from your initial service call.

Let the Discounts Commence

Earlier, I had said (incorrectly) that Verizon's internet service required an annual plan. I was wrong but the price is significantly higher for a monthly contract - so high that few people will get it. For instance, Verizon charges a $69.96 installation fee for monthly subscribers; for annual subscribers, the installation fee is $0.

If that seems an unconvincing come-on, I recently received a flyer: $15/month off for 3 months on an annual contract for Verizon's 15/2 service. This brings the price down to that of their lowest-speed service, which you can switch to at any time without penalty (e.g., after the 3 months is over). Think of it as a come-on to experience their higher-speed service for awhile at no extra charge.

On the downside, you're still obligated to a pay a $19.99 activation fee as well as being subject to a $99 early termination fee should you decide not to go the full year.

Will Verizon roll out more discounts come January 1? Undoubtedly they will offer something similar to what Comcast is doing - a triple or quadruple play offer. I'll have more to say about this as the promos roll by over the weeks ahead.

Of course, rates aren't everything. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see how quickly Comcast responds.

Faith-Based Franchise

2006-11-28T02:32:00.000-05:00

Readers may have noticed my recent lack of updates here. It's been a consequence of work-related deadlines followed by an invasion/occupation at my home over Thanksgiving. (No dad, I would not consider it helpful if you defrag my computer.)

Things slacked off enough for me to attend the MFP Committee Meeting on Monday, November 27 2006. Alas, the briefing packet appears to be an outdated briefing packet for an earlier worksession from a week earlier. I didn't attend the Monday session in person so I was stuck trying to make sense using the out-of-date packet.

Some of the issues from that earlier worksession had been resolved during yet another worksession, this one private, between Councilmember Marilyn Praisner, Verizon, and a small set of county officials and lawyers. They worked out some more issues but many remained. But from listening to the Monday session, it's apparent that Verizon is wearing down the county.

What's Left

Although it appeared that the county improved its position with Verizon on some areas (such as Poolesville) and MPDUs, for example, Verizon agreed to faster deployment - I don't think Verizon will find it challenging to deliver on those commitments. It's in their interest to do so anyway. (We interrupt this blog for an important Verizon-Rockville Status Report: Still going nowhere.)

On the other hand, the county was unable to get more control over Verizon's delivery of PEGs. After demagoging for a while about how important the PEGs were, Marilyn declared that she would take it "on faith" that Verizon would be willing to improve PEG delivery in the future. (I think the county should have offered to trade PEG channels for IPTV bandwidth, a win-win all around.)

Another area of disagreement concerned accounting over FCC requirements for telephone answering times. Verizon claimed that their call-answering service couldn't disaggregate whether calls were arriving from MC or other jurisdictions. Pretty hard to believe, given that Verizon is a phone company. But county officials didn't appear to want to hold up the franchise for it.

A more important issue was what kind of requirements Verizon would have for fixing service problems. For example, the negotiated proposal offers a hard limit of 72 hours - although not including weekends and holidays and perhaps not evening hours - after which credits would automatically be issued. This is quite a bit different than the existing franchise requirements which are in some ways shorter but don't require automatic credits. Also, existing language only requires a problem in a single channel whereas the Verizon proposal requires problems in all channels. To me, this is a showstopper right there.

Verizon's proposal also has different requirements for mass outages/credits but I'm not even going to bother describing that since the Verizon representative pointed out that they would be willing to accept the "inferior" language used in the existing franchises. I don't mean to be too unsympathetic - Verizon's offer may indeed work well for people who do not keep records or complain promptly. But as a person who does, I'd prefer to stick with the existing language. Marilyn didn't see that distinction but observed that she'd like the existing language simply for consistency. Okay, I won't argue with that idea.

Indeed, Marilyn asked Jerry Pasternak (Special Assistant to MC Executive Doug Duncan) - who presumably negotiated the original agreement on behalf of the county - how he could explain the large difference in the requirements, and his response is startling in its lack of information. Go ahead Jerry:

I think, I think that the bigger picture response to that is that these are, uh, this agreement is a separate different agreement than the ones that are in place. It was negotiated at a different time with different technology under different circumstances. And, uh, rather than, um, focus on specific detailed requirements in one agreement and insist on the same provision in the other, we looked at the entire package for comparability. We looked at what we thought would be a f... a business practice that a company tells us this is how they are structured and set up to operate and we concluded that although not identical, the two procedures, the two provisions are comparable enough and when consumers have that choice, uh, they can vote with their wallets and if they don't like the way their service is being handled they will have options and, ah, so we're not going to have identical provisions in these agreements but we think if you step back and take a look on the whole they're are not ... they are comparable uh and that was our reasoning for, uh, for the differences.

In other words, we agreed to what Verizon told us they wanted. Thanks, Jerry!

Marilyn went on to further point out that it's not as easy as Jerry might have us believe: That unhappy consumers will vote with their wallets and nimbly switch providers when unhappy. Given the years of unhappiness with Comcast which I and so many of my colleagues and friends have personally endured, it's hard to imagine switching back to them. Verizon is going to have to be really bad for that to happen. And even assuming that came to pass, what happens when Comcast screws us again? Switch back to Verizon? Huh?

Later in the meeting, again faced with a difference in the franchises, Jerry offered that the county could force Verizon to behave as if the franchise had the traditional wording - all we'd have to do is wait "12 months" to require Verizon to obtain the monitoring hardware and software and, oh, I dunno, another 12 months to get it running and collect data and turn it over to the county and have them eventually issue a fine only to be appealed. What?! Sorry Jerry, but this makes very little sense.

Despite all this very little sense, the committee members agreed to recommend the franchise go forward albeit with reservations on these unsettled issues. Despite my experience with the council wanting to tweak and control, I don't see it happening here. The council wants to pass this franchise - they are tired of having constituents complaining about Comcast; they are tired of having to talk about competition rather than provide it; and the subtleties of the franchise differences are likely to be lost on them, despite the yeoman efforts of council staffer Sonya Healy who does a damn good job in the briefing packets explaining the trade-offs. Of course, the council also recognizes that to disagree and potentially send this back for mediation or, god forbid, further legal action is the last thing the county wants to be involved in, the hell with the citizens. And lastly, the council is winding down and quite a few are leaving - they'd like to get credit for actually having done something useful with the cable mess.

So my prediction remains as before: On Tuesday, November 28, 2006, discussion beginning at 9:50am will end with the council passing the franchise - hopefully becoming more consistent with existing franchises but (and they'll all be saying this) "I can live with it either way."

A Crossbow Might Help

2006-11-05T22:21:00.000-05:00

First of all - a correction. Previously, I mentioned that Verizon TV would require an annual contract. I was wrong. The Verizon packages and prices page says nothing about that - it does mention an annual contract option on the internet side which is where I became confused. My fault. Fortunately, I didn't mention that in my testimony on Tuesday.

In fact, I didn't testify on Tuesday nor did I attend the Monday MFP meeting. Instead, I attended the Serious Games Summit. In short, serious games are games used for non-entertainment purposes such as for learning about the environment or experimenting with gerrymandering. Doesn't sound fun? Imagine a World of Warcraft clan going after the golf course owner responsible for excessive runoff from fertilization. Or after a cable company that is ignoring your neighborhood. Who needs a customer support number? All of a sudden that crossbow feels a touch more useful.

Alas, the county is still stuck with traditional penalties in amounts that don't seem particularly effective. The most recent Comcast fine of $1228 works out to roughly half a penny per customer. Having been hit with these fines many times, Comcast's franchise just doesn't seem to have an impact. It doesn't have enough teeth. It lacks precision. It lacks clarity. And it looks like we're going to get another one just like it. Similar enough anyway. Inequities aside, what I see looming is a huge minefield which we'll spend the next 15 years exploring together.

Don't get me wrong. I desperately want competition. And Verizon seems competent enough. Admittedly, Comcast has set such a low bar that my expectations aren't high. But I like some of the things that Verizon is offering. Can't beat fiber to the house, that's for sure. And the prices look great. Will they deploy quickly enough? Will customer service be acceptable? Will channel selection, umm, suck? Or, paradoxically, will Verizon be so good that Comcast finds that it cannot compete and closes up shop leaving us in a de facto monopoly situation again? Should the franchise require that Verizon not be too good? Oops, sorry - I'm not seriously concerned about that last thought.

As Monday's MFP meeting showed, there's little for Verizon to worry about as long as Comcast continues its longstanding practices. I've already mentioned some of what was presented. This week's Gazette provided more updates including an announcement from Comcast that they would be hiring 400 more people in the DC metro area - a good example of a meaningless statement. Not only isn't it specific to MC, but it matters naught if the people aren't trained or just continue to follow the same scripts that they currently use.

To underscore how badly Comcast practices are currently, here's an excerpt from the same Gazette article. I particularly like the last paragraph.

Janice Cadel, 48, of Gaithersburg recently experienced Comcast’s customer service problems first hand, she told The Gazette.

When she called Comcast to change her billing because she added telephone service to her television and Internet service, ‘‘they literally closed out my Internet account,” Cadel said. ‘‘When I called the customer service line, I got hung up on several times.”

She managed to get through the next day and was told her Internet service would be restored in 24 to 48 hours. When it was not restored, Cadel called again and was told there was no record of her previous call. Her Internet connection was restored the next day, but Cadel said the e-mails the family received during the outage were lost.

‘‘We take customer service very seriously, and we’re always trying to make customer service exceptional for Comcast customers,” said spokeswoman Lisa Altman, who said she could not comment on specific complaints.

Two more tales of woe can be found in the October 30 MFP Packet - click on item 4 and then go to page 34.

Public Hearing

As I mentioned, I also missed Tuesday's meeting but Jaime Todero, a Rockville citizen, attended and provided the following summary (originally posted to dslreports):

Only 10 people testified:
1) Jane Lawton representing the County Executive
Gave similar testimony as when testifying before the Exec
2) City Councilmember Susan Hoffman representing the City of Rockville
Gave similar testimony as when testifying before the Exec
3) Suzanne Weiss representing the Cable and Communications Advisory Committee (yes, the old name was on the agenda)
Testimony was largely regarding PEG issues.
4) Briana Gowing representing Verizon
Got cheers when she said MASN would be delivered without the $2 surcharge.
5) Michael Egan, individual
Asked for more consumer protections, but as Praisner pointed out afterwards, his suggestions are not legal
6) Richard Turner representing Montgomery Community Television
Testified to issues regarding free service at public buildings, and some other PEG-related issues
7) David Friedman, individual
Pointed out that Comcast supplies free service to 700 places, but Verizon is only required to serve 100.
8) Angela Lee representing Comcast.
Noted the differences between Comcast's requirements and Verizon's requirements (neglected to note that Verizon will pay 3% PEG/INet fee but Comcast is quite a bit shy of that)
9) Robert Carlisle, individual
Former Corning employee, is delighted to see the new network - the sooner the better.
10) Jaime Todaro, individual
Basically just said: Hurry Up Already!

In follow-up questions, Praisner asked Lawton to point out the changes the exec made in response to public testimony by the 13th, and she jokingly suggested that Rockville should de-annex if they want all their footprint covered in 2 years. She also suggested that Egan pursue a Cable Compliance Commission claim.

In response to Andrews' question regarding what could be done to speed things up, Gowing noted that the service dates VZ was willing to commit to in the agreement were the "outside" dates and service would likely be ready sooner in most cases.

Leventhal pointed out that we're just as likely to have uniformly high prices and uniformly bad service, and asked Verizon if there was any chance he was wrong. Gowing's answer was pretty weak, and Lawton added that other jurisdictions with agreements in place have not noticed better customer service.

In closing, Praisner pointed out that many folks on the I-270 "technology corridor" (a reference to Carlisle's testimony) would not see service for 7 years if ever, and assured everyone that this matter, as well as the inequitable number of free service locations would be looked in to.

After the hearing, I spoke to Doug Breisch (sp?) of Rockville DTS, who seemed stunned that Verizon was preparing to light Montrose Road, and asked me for specific streets where deployment is happening. I assured him it was all outside the city limits.

Timeline

The MFP committee will hold a worksession to discuss the Verizon franchise on November 13, 2006. This worksession is open to the public. If the worksession sends the franchise to the full council, the earliest it can be heard is November 28 since that is the next time the council meets. However, the agenda for that meeting will not be available until November 22.

Although these delays drive some people crazy, I've been figuring for awhile that January 2007 was a realistic target. November 1 would be even better. But either one qualifies as "imminent" in my book. So I called up Verizon, and asked if I could be put on a waiting list to get their TV service.

I was turned down.

Public Hearing

2006-10-29T23:58:00.000-05:00

MFP Committee

On Monday, October 30, the MFP committee will meet at 10:30am for a quarterly review of its franchisees - and soon-to-be-franchisee Verizon.

The MFP briefing packet contains reports by Sonya Healy (MC Council staffer), Jane Lawton (MC Cable Administrator), and CTC (testing and inspection contractor) which describes the good and bad for the last quarter - otherwise known as business as usual. For instance, Comcast was hit with a fine in the 2nd quarter and for the 3rd quarter has not submitted sufficient data to even know if it is in compliance. But partial figures show some decreases in customer service performance.

Complaints to the Cable Office are up 31% from 2nd quarter with 76% for service. (Complaints for RCN are down 40% for the same period.) CTC reported 2450 violations, up 11% from the 2nd quarter and 53% from a year ago. While many have now been corrected, CTC reports 1830 violations outstanding.

Picture freezing is mentioned as a notable problem which the county is receiving complaints about. Hasn't this problem been going on ever since Comcast rolled out its digital service? Another problem mentioned is the issue of standard installations. This was supposed to have been settled but evidentally customers are still being overcharged.

Comcast is also well behind on its obligation to provide cable service to public facilities. Jane's report shows 33 outstanding requests.

The committee also expects to deal with Verizon - at the very least to answer questions related to the franchise agreement. In the October 31 briefing packet, Sonya presents twelve issues that she wants addressed. More on this below.

Public Hearing

And the following day, Tuesday, October 31, the county council will hold a hearing for the public to provide input on the Verizon franchise agreement that the County Executive has proposed.

Sonya's report in the packet provides a comparison between the proposed and existing franchises. (When she says other agreements, she is referring to the existing franchises.) I cannot provide a link to the packet on the council website because it currently returns a Visual Basic error, sigh. But that's just as well - because the packet isn't searchable, grr. So I have made a searchable version of the packet you can download from my own website. (Oddly, it's also much smaller than the original - can anyone explain that?)

The number of differences are extensive and I won't go through them all but here are a few examples:

There are a number of differences over cable service availability. For example, Verizon appears to have been given some loopholes by which they can refuse to provide service if there are "technical reasons" that make it too difficult or unreasonable.
Much of Verizon's build-out is not subject to the provisions required of other franchisees because their infrastructure provides traditional phone service, making it subject to different provisions. More specifically, the franchise says that Verizon must comply with the provisions but there are no specific response times or penalties specified.
Verizon may have to provide significantly more network capacity for PEG channels if other franchises convert PEG channels to digital. Verizon will also pay a percentage of gross revenues instead of a fixed fee. Whose favor this works out to depends entirely on Verizon's success.

The remaining differences, and there are many more, can be found in the first ten pages of the packet. The packet also requests additional information from Verizon. Until these and several other issues are addressed, it is impossible to say whether the franchise is equitable both to Verizon and the existing franchisees. It is apparent that amendments must be made to the franchise in order for these issues to be addressed.

A CTC report is also provided in the packet. It raises additional issues. For example, it says "The County should verify that the set-top converters selected by Verizon work with widely-available DVRs and other consumer components, ..."

The packet also includes report from the Cable Office. I wish I could agree with everything in the report but it artfully dodges some issues. For example, page 35 has the following paragraph:

Another benefit we expect from Verizon MU'S entry into the cable market is improved service quality. Since providers must vie for a limited number of consumers in certain areas of the County, there is a strong incentive to be responsive to subscriber needs, and to provide reliable, high-quality services. In the past, cable subscribers in the County have complained about poor picture quality and other problems. With the advent of competition, it is likely that traditional deficiencies will be avoided or quickly corrected, since consumers can easily change service providers.

However, it is my understanding that Verizon is offering only yearly contracts making it not so easy to change service providers if consumers are unhappy with the service they receive from Verizon.

The Cable Office report also omitted the public testimony provided by citizens at the Executive Hearing last month, instead choosing to summarize it. Needless to say, their summary was terse and omitted, for example, any of the issues that I raised. The report also referred to written comments from Comcast. These were also omitted from the report as were portions of the original filing as I described earlier.

Your Turn

Due to conflicts in my own schedule, I will not be able to testify in person; however I plan to submit a written statement. If you would like to testify in person, the council has a page that explains how to sign up and gives some advice on how to how to testify effectively.

Halloween

2006-10-04T16:53:00.000-04:00

I trust everyone enjoyed the presentations at the Public Hearing on the Verizon Cable Franchise Application. It's too late to submit comments for the record; However, there will be another opportunity - this time for the County Council which must approve the application.

But I'm skipping over something important. The Executive is supposed to digest the public testimony and based on it, make a recommendation to the council. Anyone want to guess what that recommendation will be?

Presuming the obvious, the council has already set a date for its hearing: October 31, 2006. Costumes anyone? (The politicos would pay a lot more attention to your testimony if you showed up with a spool of cable over your shoulder and a Freddy Kreuger mask on your face.) The time of the hearing is 1:30pm which makes it rather inconvenient for most citizens. Hmm. Is it better to hold these hearings during the day (when citizens won't attend them) or during the evening (when politicians won't attend them)?

But the public will be listening. I've heard from a large number of people who have watched the video archive of the hearing.

Speaking of which, can we improve the quality of the video? The audio is fine but the picture is so poor that the faces lack detail and the smaller subtitles are completely unreadable. Given that the viewership is entirely local, the county should be able to pump out higher-bandwidth video without incurring excessive charges or latency. It doesn't make sense that we can get high-quality video free from Google on the other side of the US but we can't get decent video from down the street in Rockville when the county network is hooked directly to Comcast and RCN fiber (and presumably soon Verizon as well). As I mentioned in my presentation, the franchise should ensure that the government has plenty of bandwidth for video-on-demand (VOD). And once the franchise does, then we need to actually use the bandwidth more effectively too. VOD is the future and, for some already, the present. Did anyone watch Channel 6 live? Or was it all via the archive?

I used to be able to watch the Channel 6 archives in a choice of video formats as well as on both Windows and Mac. It appears we have taken a giant step backward. Now the archives are only available in Windows Media (which truly stinks for trying to make transcripts due to the lack of precise control and significant lag). And the archives are only accessible on Windows and only using Internet Explorer.

Bottom line: Not only is the county making it more difficult for people to testify, but the county is making it more difficult to hear others testify as well. Something is seriously wrong here.

Executive Hearing Testimony

2006-09-30T23:01:00.000-04:00

This past Thursday, September 28 2006, I attended the hearing for the public to testify on the Proposed Verizon franchise. There were 15 speakers, most of them members of the public. There were no council members present and the executive (whose hearing it was) was not there either. I was not surprised as the same thing happened at the previous hearing of this type (the last was during the Comcast transfer several years ago).

A few of the presentations were excellent and I hope to get a hold of the transcripts when available. In the meantime, if you're on a Windows platform, you can watch the video. It's about an hour. A discussion of some of the testimony can be found at dslreports.

Here is what I presented. If it seems short, that's because members of the public were asked to keep it to 3 minutes.

My name is Don Libes and I thank you for the opportunity to testify on the proposed Verizon franchise.

Although I look forward to competition in Montgomery County, I am concerned that the county appears to be rushing into this particular agreement without a thorough understanding of what it means.

I have been stymied in understanding it myself. For example, I have asked the county cable office for a list of differences between the current and new franchises and have received no reply. Surely, the council needs such a list as well. Please make this information available along with a clear explanation of the reason for each change and its expected impacts.

I would also like to ask why the county appears to be suppressing much of the background material. For example, roughly 135 pages have been made available. This is in contrast to the roughly 900 pages of material made available during the last Comcast negotiation. What’s missing?

The technology assessment from CTC is completely missing. The assessment from the county’s financial advisors Ashpaugh & Sculco is missing. There’s no correspondence, no indication of discussions, no explanation of the reasons the proposed franchise looks the way it does.

And this is after a year of negotations followed by court actions and mediation, during which the franchise was shaped. There ought to be a huge paper trail and the county needs to provide this to the public. And all PDF documents should be searchable. The council does this; the Executive should as well.

Time will not permit all my other questions but here are a few examples:

Will the existing franchises be changed in any ways to bring them closer in to line with this new one? If so, how?

How are gross revenues for video-on-demand and streaming video to be computed? Does it depend on whether such video is initiated via an internet connection or whether it is transferred using cable TV bandwidth? The franchise is too vague on what is and is not a cable service and leaves consumers open to unpleasant surprises and court battles.

How does the county justify the continuing demand for dedicated PEG channels when they are more effectively provided as video-on-demand? The county continues to do this without any meaningful viewer statistics as far as I’m aware. Just because the FCC says we can doesn’t mean we should. Video-on-demand is the future of narrowcasting and PEGs should lead the way. I believe the cost to the consumer would decrease and PEG viewership would rise if VOD were widely adopted by the PEGs and protected by the franchise.

Lastly, the Verizon application, attachment 4, promises an analog tier in the clear but the corresponding description in the proposed franchise seems quite a bit more narrow. As most subscribers seek to avoid set-top boxes, please address this difference between the two documents.

Thank you for allowing me to testify on the proposed Verizon franchise.

Hearing Tonight

2006-09-28T12:55:00.000-04:00

As I mentioned previously, the public is invited to testify at the hearing this evening (Thursday, Sept 28 2006) on the proposed Verizon franchise.

Earlier today I spoke to Amy Wilson in the Cable Office and she said that 16 people are on the list to speak tonight. It's not too late to pre-register and she encouraged pre-registration but said that people will be permitted to speak without registering in advance. Citizens normally get 3 minutes each. Additional comments can be submitted in writing or email up to October 2. Note: The meeting has been moved from the 3rd floor to the 7th floor of the County Council Building.

Amy also explained that the hearing is for the benefit of the County Executive. (I had previously written that it was a council hearing.) This tells me that the proposed franchise is still in the Executive's hands and has not gone to the council for approval. I don't know what to make of that given the county's publication of the proposed franchise on their website. My past experience with these dual hearings is that the county executive hearings are purely for appearance. Nothing I've ever heard at one - at least the cable-related hearings - has been incorporated or used in any way.

In contrast, comments at the council hearings do get more consideration. You'd think that it ought to work in reverse - that the earlier you get your comments in, the more likely they can be incorporated. Your best bet: Give testimony at both hearings.

Yes, there will be a second hearing on the Verizon franchise. The council is required to hold their own. I'm not aware that any date for that hearing has been set yet. So predicted deployment dates that I mentioned previously should be moved further back - perhaps by another month at best.

See you tonight!

Proposed Verizon Franchise

2006-09-15T13:00:00.000-04:00

Verizon has officially submitted their franchise application. The Executive has accepted it and the two have agreed on a franchise. Whew!

I'll be precise: the franchise should now be referred to as the proposed franchise because it must still approved by the County Council. We can expect them to request changes to the proposed franchise. There will be severe pressure not to make changes but that won't stop them from trying - they are politicians, after all. It's in their nature.

In addition, they are required to hold a public hearing on the franchise. There's little reason to speak at the hearing just to encourage the council to approve the franchise. Shucks, even Comcast has said "... we welcome competition" so mere cheerleaders are not needed.

But if there is something that isn't properly addressed in the proposal, it is our duty as citizens to point it out. Indeed, that is the point of the public hearing. It is our one opportunity to speak directly and publicly to the council on the matter. Given that the proposal is for a 15-year franchise (that lengthy term itself is only the start of my concerns), this is a rare opportunity indeed.

A public hearing will be held on September 28 at 7 p.m. in the Third Floor Hearing Room of the Stella B. Werner Council Office Building, 100 Maryland Avenue in Rockville. Individuals may either testify in person at the public hearing or provide written comments for the record. To pre-register to testify at the hearing, contact the County’s Cable Office at 240-777-3684. Written comments may be submitted through 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 2, 2006 or as otherwise directed by the Hearing Officer. Comments should be mailed or delivered to DTS-Cable Office, 100 Maryland Avenue, Suite 250, Rockville, MD 20850. Comments may also be submitted via email to amy.wilson@montgomerycountymd.gov.

The hearing is less than 2 weeks away. You may get excited that such a rapidly-scheduled hearing means MC is now pushing hard to get to the end, but I'm concerned that there isn't enough time to review the material, form an educated position, and write any kind of intelligent statement with suggestions to the council. The application and proposed franchise have only just been released to the public. And I've seen no analysis whether the franchise proposal has any changes from current franchises. (Surely, the county has such an analysis?) What timebombs are waiting in the franchise for us to discover only when it is too late? (Community discussion and analysis can be found at dslreports.com.)

I've only started going through the material myself. Do we know how some of the contentious issues were resolved? No. (For example, will Verizon be subject to the existing cable modem regulations or was Verizon able to get them scrapped?) At the same time, I'm already shocked at the LACK of material. During the last Comcast franchise hearing, there were 900 or so pages of documentation made available to the public. That depth of analysis is either missing here or has been withheld from the public. For instance, the financial data is completely absent.

Various MC officials have stated that the conditions should be the same across franchises; however, don't misinterpret this to mean Verizon will just get a copy of the existing Comcast franchise. There are plenty of things in the existing requirements that don't make much sense in the context of duplicate systems (such as the institutional network and free access for public facilities). And other provisions are worded so vaguely that the provisions are useless (such as the telephone answering requirements). New franchises are opportunities to fix the worst of these.

Since the council can significantly delay the process, my guess is another four months before service can actually be offered, meaning roughly January 1 of 2007. Verizon hedged a bit and predicted "early next year." Jane Lawton, MC Cable Administrator, carefully spoke only about MC activity when the Washington Post quoted her saying that "council approval could come by the end of the year."

MC Wins ... and Loses

One might assume that the Verizon agreement is a win for Montgomery County. Whether that's true depends very much on the individual.

For example, the COPE Act is the national franchise bill pending in Congress. Earlier, I had wondered if COPE would make the Verizon lawsuit moot if the lawsuit ran long enough. COPE actually has some good provisions as well as bad ones. Consider the PEG financing amendment. COPE would have lowered the payment to PEGs from 3% to 1% of gross revenues. If you are a watcher of PEG channels, this is a disaster - think 66% budget cut. (The PEGs claim 53% but don't explain their calculations. Close enough anyway. The point is, it's a huge cut.) On the other hand, if you don't watch PEG channels (which is probably true for greater than 95% of the population), you might wonder why you have to pay for all this stuff you don't watch.

But the cost for PEGs is peanuts compared to the expected (17%) savings that other communities are averaging from competitive TV offerings. And we can already see the dramatic difference in the cost of internet service. It's inconceivable that Comcast will not lower its internet prices. And Comcast will have to raise its performance as well. I've compared the two services before and the figures are still valid. (See Best Deal For Comcast Customers and What's FIOS.)

On the other hand, if you're an RCN customer, you may not find this news too uplifting. For RCN, this is yet one more nail in the coffin - quite unfortunate given RCN's record of customer satisfaction. As long as Comcast was their competition, it was easy for RCN to shine. But with Verizon entering the picture - driving down prices - and all three offering triple plays (and possibly quadruple plays - net, tv, home phone, cell phone), RCN will likely find its business even more financially untenable. The winners in the industry are growing in order to profit from the advantages of scale. RCN, which recently sold off a significant base of its subscribers, is headed in the other direction. RCN claims it is looking for a buyer but it would be nuts to buy its MC operation given the presence of Comcast and Verizon. And there's no reason for either of them to buy RCN either.

One more potential winner: Rockville. Since the earlier treatment that Rockville was giving Verizon, it appears that Rockville is coming around. I've been told that Verizon offered to fund a new study that might justify lower permit fees in Rockville. And the Baltimore Business Journal reports that the proposed franchise would include Rockville.

Finally, it bears mentioning that Verizon's lawsuit has not disappeared. Until the council approves the franchise and the papers are signed, Verizon will hold the lawsuit over MC's head. Good thing, too.

TAC This

The Telecommunications Advisory Committee is a group of citizens appointed by the Montgomery County Executive to provide advice to the Executive and the Council. Earlier this summer, I pointed out how disappointed I was that the TAC wasn't meeting during the summer. Let me rephrase that: I'm disgusted that the TAC is completely out of the loop. In my earlier tirade, I gave examples of what they've missed during their summer recesses and to that list we can now add another item of significance: the proposed franchise. As of today, they still haven't met since they began their recess and thus there will not be enough time to deliver a TAC recommendation to the council on the franchise by the September 28 deadline.

But this should not be a surprise. The TAC has been kept out of the loop for the entire year of Verizon negotations. It was never told about the extent of the meetings with Verizon. The TAC was never informed about the recommendations the county was making to Verizon or what Verizon was requesting in return. The TAC was never told about any of the Verizon-related FCC filings. And the TAC was not invited to the strategy discussions of the Council or the Executive.

So a failure to deliver any kind of recommendation is, well, tradition. There's no point to continuing the committee anyway - is there? When was the last time the Executive followed the TAC's advice anyway? I fail to see the point of going through the pretense of advertising for candidates, interviewing them, selecting them, having the council approve them, and holding meetings. It's a big charade. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars. We ought to stop it.

Shareholders Love The Nats

2006-08-14T11:59:00.000-04:00

Last week, I mentioned how Councilmember Howie Denis had used his rhetorical moment during a quarterly franchise review to complain about the failure of Comcast to carry the Nationals games here in Montgomery MD (and throughout the DC region).

At the time, I observed that it was pointless given that Comcast and MASN had entered arbitration over the matter. That arbitration has now concluded. It looks like Comcast won and subscribers also won. Or lost. Depends on your point of view.

Somehow omitted from the Comcast press release about the good news was the bad news: Comcast plans to increase their rates $2 per subscriber (plus additional franchise fees and taxes) to pay for the coverage of the Nats games. Ok, not all subscribers - just those subscribing to Comcast's enhanced basic - in other words, anyone getting more than the lowest-numbered 30 or so channels (which includes such gems as the Home Shopping Network, QVC, and the TV Guide Channel).

Put bluntly, most subscribers will be hit with the $2 surcharge.

Who Would Willingly Pay For QVC?

This raises the obvious question: Why should subscribers who have no interest in Nats games be forced to pay for them?

Putting aside the conflicting studies showing whether a la carte packages are more expensive (FCC, 2004) or less expensive (FCC, 2006) and whether they improve or hinder diversity of programming, the answer is more likely that enough people will watch whatever sports are put on TV, and that a few dollars here and a few dollars there aren't large enough increases to hit people hard enough to change their behavior - to sit up and question the status quo. (Curiously, it is much harder to find the later report on the FCC website than their earlier report.)

Another significant factor is that the bulk of Comcast's broadband customers still believe they are getting a better deal by subscribing to Comcast's video service to get the package discount. I've previously shown that isn't true but habit, effective advertising, and automatic billing are hard to overcome.

PS: Join me in thanks that we don't live in DC and have to pay for yet another stadium boondoggle!

Shareholders Should Be Happy

The details of the arbitration have not been made public but the August 12 2006 Washington Post quotes a MASN spokesperson as saying the true cost is $1.25 per subscriber. Simple subtraction (2.00 - 1.25) suggests that Comcast is using this hike to raise their profit (after lawyers fees) by .75 per subscriber. With roughly 200,000 subscribers in MC that equates to $150K a month in additional profit or $1.8M per year. Nice.

According to the Post article, Comcast denies this, indicating that "MASN's statements . . . show a lack of familiarity with the provisions of the carriage agreement and with the basics of the cable television marketplace." If anyone knows what she's referring to, I'd like to hear. And so would Cox, DirectTV, RCN, and Verizon. They all carry the Nats games and have not raised rates either.

Festina Lente

2006-08-09T17:57:00.000-04:00

On August 8, 2006, I attended a preliminary hearing on Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Montgomery Co., MD.

As a reminder, Verizon's lawsuit asked for:

... a preliminary injunction invalidating Montgomery County's current cable franchising law and directing the county to negotiate a franchise with Verizon on lawful terms within 60 days. At the same time - in an effort to help speed the negotiations to resolution - Verizon is asking the court to invalidate the numerous unlawful requirements the county is attempting to impose on the company.

As I looked around the courtroom, I concluded that were this a simple guilty / not guilty case, I'd have had to bet on Verizon based on the number of people alone. I counted 13 people representing VZ versus 6 from the county. But except for lawyer's bills, things are never that predictable.

Fere Libenter Homines Id Quod Volunt Credunt

Despite my fear that the judge would make some superficial action such as throwing the whole thing out or granting a continuance, the judge dived right in to the meat of the case. Although he didn't appear to be up to speed on everything, he at least recognized the basic positions of the two parties and why agreements were not fast in coming.

As I munched my popcorn, the lawyers brought up various precedents (which they proceeded to misinterpret or otherwise abuse) that, while interesting seemed, to me at least, to demonstrate why so much law is just garbage and why English is a terrible way of expressing anything definitively. (And, de facto, Latin doesn't help.)

I'm not going to go through the individual arguments except to say that the judge listened to a few of the disagreements and in each case pointed out that, at least in spirit, there was agreement but for the sloppy language in the existing franchise or the federal cable act.

And with that ("that" having taken several hours), the judge denied the preliminary injunction but ordered that the court will appoint a mediator (a magistrate judge who is not a resident of Montgomery County or Baltimore) and that Verizon will be directed to file its application immediately, in parallel, and without a negative impact on the case.

Rather than mediating all issues simultaneously, the judge specified that issues would be mediated one at a time - or however would best make progress. The mediator would have no specific power (i.e., not binding arbitration); however, if the mediation failed, the parties would then return before the judge who could make a definitive ruling, even potentially throwing out sections of MC's cable-related code or taking some action that would cause Verizon to forfeit its $450K filing fee. Given what each side has to lose, it makes sense for the parties to work cooperatively and a neutral mediator could be helpful.

I said "could" because while the proceedings appeared to go smoothly, the judge chose only to discuss some of the more easily resolvable differences. For example, the judge got basic agreement on the franchise acceptance fee. But there was no discussion on some of the thornier issues such as cable modem regulation and transitive regulation of Verizon's existing infrastructure and phone service.

And even in places where the judge seemingly had the parties nodding their heads in agreement, I have to express doubt as to whether they can really get it in writing. For example, the lawyers conceded that 5% of gross revenues applied only to video-related service, no matter what the franchise said. But I question whether the lawyers and the judge really understand the implications of convergence (i.e., the future melding of video and internet technology). As a trivial example, when Verizon delivers video to your computer over the internet, will this be subject to a 5% franchise fee because it's video or 0% because it's internet? It's important to realize that the distinction between the two is very loose despite the traditional notion that we have over them today.

So I think that the mediation process sounds great but may turn out to solve none of the serious areas of disagreement, forcing things back in the judge's hands in 60 days or whenever the mediator's time runs out. (A timeline was established behind closed doors and I don't know if this will be made public.) While this process could induce additional delays, the judge has the authority to settle things definitively - at least until one of the parties appeals the outcome. Appeals would be the worst possible outcome and surely neither Verizon nor MC wants to go that route.

In the short term, action yesterday potentially paves the way for a peaceful and (here I'd love to say "swift" but almost anything is swift relative to a year of non-) forward progress. As long as it can be done equitably, both MC and Verizon have strong motivation to settle and sign a franchise. Let's hope they do.

Rideo, Ergo Sum

In the spirit of painful humor, this flash video has been circulating around. It's sad the depths we've sunk to. On the other hand, I do agree that Go Montgomery! was a political gimmick in the first place. (And is now a failed political gimmick.) So in that sense, the video and the program deserve each other.

Acta Est Fabula Plaudite

The first person to post a comment with correct translations of all the Latin phrases I've used gets a coupon for a free pizza (coupon courtesy of Comcast). And after this, I promise - no more Latin!

CDV Complaints Commence

2006-08-05T14:06:00.000-04:00

This past Monday (July 31, 2006), I attended the quarterly county review of video franchise holders in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Contrary to my earlier prediction of a rollicking good time, it was anything but. Did I fail to get the memo? There were only about six people in the audience, a big difference from past meetings when the house was packed. This was even more surprising given that we've gone half a year without one of these things. So the meeting was really to review two quarters worth.

We started with a review of how well Comcast and RCN have been meeting their franchise requirements. Some complaints levels were up a little, some were down a little. The Cable Office received 263 complaints about Comcast in Q1 and another 387 in Q2. The Q2 complaint levels are down from last year's but recall that last year's were unusually high (which Comcast blamed on Verizon). For both quarters, more than half of Comcast's complaints (438 of 650) were for service. For RCN, more than half (17 of 28) were for billing.

There were 2150 and 2199 construction violations by Comcast in Q1 and Q2 respectively. RCN figures were 478 and 715 for the same periods. Is it that hard to install and maintain cable plants? Do other jurisdictions get these high figures?

Jane Lawton, MC Cable Administrator, presented these statistics along with notices of fines and warnings that both franchisees keep getting. Jane extolled Comcast's new General Manager Sanford Ames in one breath and in the next breath went on with her recitation of continuing problems.

Although the county can assess fines for some things, it has a tougher problem with other issues. For instance, the county must approve Comcast's privacy policy and they rejected yet another one. It's been at least two years now that Comcast has violated this provision of the franchise. But short of yanking the entire franchise, I'm not sure what recourse the county has. Why do we have a franchise with provisions that aren't enforceable?

CDV Complaints Commence

I hate when the Cable Office swallows the corporate cool-aid - witness their willness to use Comcast-speak while describing Comcast's new family tier as family friendly. Don't get me wrong - I have a great deal of respect for the Cable Office. And sympathy. They don't have a lot flexibility in the tools at their disposal. And I like that they track things that they aren't even required to track. Yet a new category of complaints they've begun tracking is for telephone service offered by the franchises. Well, maybe they have been tracking this for RCN (which has offered phone service in the past) but it has never come up before. However it certainly came up at this meeting.

The Cable Office reported having received 80 complaints for Comcast Digital Voice (CDV) with some outages of "2 to 3 weeks" according to testimony. That's 80 complaints to the Cable Office. (Angela Lee, Comcast's Director of Government Affairs, naturally refused to say how many complaints Comcast got directly.) It was at this point that the participants seemed to leave all knowledge behind because CDV was repeatedly referred to as VoIP and relying on the internet, both of which are misleading. The council didn't seem to understand nor did Angela how CDV is unlike traditional VoIP. I'm not sure that anyone did because no one else in attendence made any attempt to clear it up either. (Members of the public are not permitted to interrupt at these meetings, even if it's to correct blatant mistakes. Instead we do a lot of teeth gritting.)

I was left wondering if the reported 2 to 3 week outages were simply for internet service or really were for CDV. Nonetheless, it was clear from the complaints that consumers were extremely surprised (not to mention unhappy) at the unreliable nature of Comcast's phone service. Councilmember Marilyn Praisner asked what kind of statements Comcast was making about the reliability of the service and Angela responded that customers are told about various conditions (such as limited battery life during power outages) that can affect service. Praisner restated the question thusly: What are customers told about the reliability of the service BEFORE they sign up and BEFORE they sever the relationship with their previous phone company. I didn't get Angela's exact words because I was so stunned after she said it but it was pretty close to this: Many of our customers are experienced and already know about the unreliability of VoIP. Oh really!

And the misleading (or bizarre) statements continued. At one point, the council started asking about complaints regarding pixellation in the digital channels. I was surprised to hear Angela give a lengthy reply which amounted to It's complex but which also implied that she hadn't a clue but was prepared to talk as long as it took for the councilmembers to get tired of asking questions. At one point, she said (paraphrase) Pixellation in the digital channels is much harder to debug than snow in the analog channels. C'mon Angela. If you don't know what you're talking about, just say you don't know. Alas, the councilmembers accepted her blather and moved on to other items.

Verizon

To my surprise, there was no review of Verizon performance at the meeting. Not even an update on FIOS construction. Marilyn uttered only one sentence - that there would be no comments pending the litigation.

Meanwhile Verizon has put up a petition for MC residents to express their desire for cable video competition. It intends to present the petition to the county at some point. I'm not sure how compelling that will be compared to a lawsuit though! Isn't this like following a bomb with a flyswatter? Is this the backup in case the bomb is a dud? Could Verizon be worried that the lawsuit will be dismissed? (I signed it anyway.)

We might find out soon. On August 7 2006 at 10am, motions will be heard on Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Montgomery Co., MD MJG-06-1663 in Courtroom 5C at the US District Court for the District of Maryland. The address is 101 W. Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. As one poster to dslreports.com dryly noted: "I understand it will not be catered." Anyone interested in going anyway?

RCN

A few last notes about RCN. RCN seems to be having some problems. They are having cable plant maintenance problems. And their complaint numbers are up significantly. (It's a bit strange to consider numbers in the teens as "significant" but then we're using to seeing their complaint numbers in the ones!) As I said earlier, most of the RCN complaints were regarding billing (in comparison most of Comcast's complaints were about service).

So why the spike? RCN says there were two reasons. First, they had growth in subscribers they didn't have enough staff to deal with! Second, it appears that the growth was due to new packages they offered. But don't worry ... We got rid of the marketing guy who came up with the new packages! Huh? I must've misinterpreted their explanation but that's what it sounded like!

Showmanship

Finally, I can't help noting that the Councilmembers each enjoyed a bit of posturing for the cameras undoubtedly due to the the upcoming elections that the three members of the MFP committee are facing. Councilmember Marilyn Praisner repeatedly spoke to the cameras. For instance, when Jane made reference to some FCC forms, Marilyn asked Jane to explain the form names for the benefit of people watching on TV. I'm figuring that Marilyn didn't remember the cryptic numbers. I don't hold this against her. Who does remember all those numbers?! But to ask for the explanations this way is unseemly and transparently so.

After all, the entire meeting is filled with jargon and subtle concepts that go unexplained (and frequently misunderstood by many of the attendees themselves). If Marilyn really wanted the audience to understand all the obscure references, the meeting would take an entire day.

Admittedly, I did enjoy when she quoted something right out of one of my earlier postings when she started her line of questioning over the policy for getting a hold of a supervisor, finally ending with the rhetorical question: Is it possible that there are no supervisors?

Councilmember Phil Andrews also got his opportunity to pose for the cameras. He went on for awhile about how customers are regularly frustrated in their dealings with Comcast and how it has been this way for years. And in the middle of his turn at rhetorical questioning, he "accidentally" let slip how competition would help. If that's not playing to the constituency, I don't know what is.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with Marilyn and Phil on most of their positions and would be glad to see them back on the council next term. It's just that I wonder where they're going with their lines of questioning at these meetings. An an example, Phil asked what kind of training is received by the Comcast phone people. (Comcast calls these people CAEs for Customer Account Executives. Don't you want to be an executive, too?)

So he and Angela got into a fascinating but ultimately useless discussion - because whatever the training is, IT'S CLEARLY NOT ENOUGH! Angela could've said they're trained for 6 years (actual amount: 6 weeks) but so what? I get frustrated with at least 50% of the calls I make to Comcast. Phil could ask me for several stories from this month alone. Instead, he dragged out some letter he received a YEAR AGO complaining about Comcast closing out complaints without first checking with the customer to see if the problem really had been solved. To be sure, Comcast's practice of closing complaints prematurely hasn't gone away BUT THAT'S THE POINT. It's been a year since the MFP Committee excoriated Comcast for this practice and nothing's changed. It's all for naught. Why does the MFP committee bother?

As if Phil still hadn't caught on, he also talked about another letter he received from a Silver Spring resident complaining about four missed appointments and a litany of other Comcast problems encountered along the way). Angela did a very imaginative job coming up with rationalizations as to how it could happen. Phil got no traction and ultimately Angela got the last word: We're looking into this. And I'm sure she will be - or whoever her replacement is - a year from now.

I must admit I did find one interchange between Phil and Angela interesting. He asked what the turnover was in CAEs and to my astonishment, she answered.

Angela: Our attrition rate is 7.5%
Phil: Is that 7.5% a quarter or a year?
Angela: That's per quarter.
Don (silently): That explains a lot!

My last example is Councilmember Howard ("Howie") Dennis. Howie is truly an asset to the committee. By keeping his mouth closed, the meetings go much quicker then they otherwise might. But I guess he wants to get re-elected too so he opened his mouth despite my fervent prayer. His 1st question: Why can't I get the Nats games?! I was stupified as he noted that he was aware that the issue had gone to arbitration because, despite admitting this, he went on to brilliantly suggest that Comcast "split the difference" with MASN (the network that holds the cable rights to the Nats games). Howie, what's your point here? Showing that you understand something that happened in the past and over which you have no control now? Do you really think voters find this compelling?

Howie went on to ask some absurd question about the customer service requirements of the franchise (such as the requirement that phones be answered within 30 seconds 90% of the time). I don't recall who (I think it was Marilyn) gently explained that these provisions come right from the FCC regulations. If she had really wanted to go to town, she could've pointed out that they had already reviewed the figures an hour earlier and WHY WAS HE ASKING ABOUT THEM NOW?! Not to mention, they've been discussed at every quarterly review he's attended as well as during council meetings. Howie, that's really great that you're interested in understanding what you're supposed to be legislating NOW THAT YOU'RE AT THE END OF YOUR TERM!!

Conclusion

And with that, thankfully, the meeting was adjourned. If you'd like more information, you can read the council's briefing packet which contains all the statistics, the inspection reports, and the letters to which I've referred here. And if anyone has any corrections, please let me know. The county hasn't made this session available on streaming video for some reason, so I'm relying on my notes and memory. (Curiously, there was a Gazette reporter taking notes as well but I've seen no article from the Gazette about the meeting.)

Incidentally, I also listened to the prior item on the agenda which was a review of a request for a non-video franchise to allow Fiber Technologies to lay fiber in the MC rights-of-way. As is the case with all of these that I've seen, MC extracted its pound of flesh. In this case, the company is obligated to provide the county:

5% of gross receipts,
users' tax,
cost of permits,
4 strands of lit fiber,
and up to $2000 to cover miscellaneous costs.

As to what the government does with all these strands (that all go nowhere particularly useful if you're not a business), I have no idea. One of these days, I'll have to track down who in the county government even knows so I can ask and find out.

Summer Vacation For Public Advice

2006-07-24T19:20:00.000-04:00

An alert reader, noticing where we are in the month, asked me for an update from the MC Executive's citizen advisory committee - formally known as the Telecommunications Advisory Committee. The TAC meets on the third Wednesday of each month ... except:

There are no TAC meetings in the summer, and
1. doesn't matter anyway but for different reasons then it thinks. (Hang in there. That sentence will make more sense soon.)

Summer TAC Meetings

At the last meeting, the TAC and the Cable Office agreed that nothing was happening that required TAC attention. (Rather ironic given the Verizon lawsuit announced just one week later.) But as long as I can remember, this peculiar practice occurs: The TAC is led by the Cable Office to believe that nothing is happening and TAC members happily concur that meetings will be poorly attended due to summer vacations anyway so by mutual agreement, the TAC schedules their next meeting 3 months hence - in September.

Yet every year, serious things churn throughout the summer. Last summer, the TAC recessed for the summer and only then did citizens find out about a hearing on Bill 7-05 (to extend the life of the Cable Compliance Commission) 5 days before the hearing. The year before, only in June did we see the final draft of the Executive's cable modem regulations (26-03AM) to be voted on by the Council before the next TAC meeting. And the summer of 2002, it was Bill 28-02 (which established the Cable Compliance Commission and led to the cable modem regs). Is citizen involvement really desired by the county - or does it simply want to pay lip service to the idea of citizen input?

And do TAC representatives really care about telecomm issues? Or are they just padding their resumes? It's a bad sign that the TAC representatives are all too happy to agree to take the summer off despite the history of what goes on around here. Good grief people! Is one night a month too much to ask?

Not That It Matters

Back to the question: Does the county want citizen input? An advisory committee? What for? A public hearing to consider the Verizon franchise? Why do we need to hear from the public? (Pop quiz for any MC officials: Over the last 10 years, which TAC recommendations has the Executive followed?)

Obviously, I have my doubts the Executive has spent a lot of time considering TAC testimony but at least the Executive has held public hearings for franchises. Alas, this seems to have stopped. The Executive didn't hold one for the RCN franchise renegotiation. And the Executive has not held one for Verizon. I recommend three public hearings:

One now - to let the public weigh in on the lawsuit.
One after the franchise application has been made available to the public for a suitable period of time - to give the Executive advice on the application.
And one more - to comment on the Executive's proposal during Council consideration.

By failing to even file the franchise, the Executive prevents the public from seeing any parts of Verizon's application and subsequent filings. (Yes, I know Verizon has not officially submitted an application but this now appears to be a technical issue rather than one of intent.) During Comcast's last franchise negotation, the county released close to 1000 pages of documentation - a treasure trove of material (some of it quite embarrassing and a good predictor of Comcast's future behavior) that helped citizens learn about the company.

Finally, each hearing must be effectively communicated to the public with sufficient lead time. The county has a history of announcing hearings without enough advance notice to give citizens (or the TAC) enough time to prepare statements. And such meetings must be communicated effectively to the public. Why is there no email list for such announcements? Even the Division of Solid Waste Services has an email alert list to let the public know when they're going to reschedule pickups! Can't we get this kind of timely and reliable email communication with other parts of the Executive branch? Or is it only for garbage?

And the Executive branch is not alone in its poor communication skills. The County Council home page has long advertised that citizens can sign up for council agendas and packets. And I have signed up - several times! But I've never received one. I finally called up this week and spoke to a council staffer who said that she wondered if any of the hundreds of people who had subscribed would ever complain. Evidentally, it was well-known internally that there was no automated mechanism to provide what the council has been advertising!

What's Happened Recently

On July 11, a closed-door session was held by the Council's MFP committee to discuss strategy over the Verizon lawsuit. The County is allowed to have closed-door sessions when getting advice from their lawyers. Yet it is my understanding no members of the TAC were invited to give their advice or otherwise participate. This is unfortunate as the advice from the lawyers is likely to simply re-affirm the interests of the county government - a self-reinforcing cycle of self-interest with resulting non-progress.

On July 20, the county filed its response. I've only just seen it myself; however a quick glance shows that it attempts to refute all of Verizon's assertions. By the way, the original Verizon filing was not searchable. I've made available a searchable version. (When you generate PDF, please make it searchable!)

In the meantime, I encourage you to read the discussion at dslreports.com. There has been some stimulating discussion of the lawsuit including comparisons with the franchises that Verizon has signed in neighboring jurisdictions and how these compare to the MC offers. One of the more surprising observations was the assertion that the Council advised the Executive that no cable-related legislation should be proposed before the next set of elections. If council members are too busy campaigning to do their job, I recommend they resign so that they can focus their attention on what is evidentally most important to them: their campaign.

More Notable Dates

On July 31 at 2pm, there will be the usual quarterly review of the franchisees: Comcast and RCN. Verizon is also invited pro forma. But based on the hyperbole being issued by both sides, I can't imagine how this will turn out. Bring popcorn. Settle back. No matter what, it should be entertaining. You can attend in person (7th floor of the County Council Building) or watch via County Cable Montgomery (channel 6) or streaming video - live or archived. Warning: the streaming video is very low resolution and the archive is usually not available for a day or two.

Although I've repeatedly said that Verizon has a significant advantage in the current situation, these MFP meetings generally keep the franchisees (and franchisee applicants) at a disadvantage. The councilmembers are in charge of the mike and can interrupt or cut off any speaker at whim. The council can bluster and posture and the other attendees have no recourse but to sit there and take it. Obsequiousness rules the day. Of course they can walk out or skip the meeting. That's been done, too, but I don't recommend it. Bottom line: Don't expect any kind of aggressiveness or legal maneuvering from Verizon here. This won't be the time for it.

On August 15 at 7pm, there will be a Candidate Forum for District 18 Legislators at the Kensington Town Hall (Armory Building). I bring this up because one of the candidates likely to participate is incumbent Delegate Jane Lawton who is also the Cable Administrator for Montgomery County.

Would this be the time to pose questions regarding the cable franchise? I don't recommend it. Jane is much too knowledgeable to be caught off-guard. She serves at the pleasure of Executive Duncan and she will faithfully represent his position, even if she personally doesn't agree. Nonetheless, it might still be worth watching her at the forum. She's very smart, experienced, and polished - plus, as an incumbent, she has a tremendous advantage over the other candidates.

Montgomery County Fights Back

2006-07-07T16:56:00.000-04:00

In reaction to last Friday's lawsuit by Verizon, various MC politicians have declared that Verizon is the guilty party and that the county intends to vigorously defend itself. One such statement from a Gazette article:

"The county repeatedly expressed to Verizon and acted upon the county’s commitment to expedite the franchise agreement, but it takes two parties to negotiate," said Chief Administrative Officer Bruce F. Romer.

But it's clear that MC officials are in spin mode. Consider this comment from Councilmember Marilyn Praisner:

"They haven't submitted a franchise application," Praisner said, adding that when Verizon representatives appeared before her committee, she was told that the company would submit a franchise application, but so far that hasn't happened.

Praisner said that if Verizon didn't like the standard franchise agreement that other cable operators have signed, they could have red-lined the parts they didn't like, and submitted the changed version for negotiation, but she said the company hasn't done that, either.

But maybe it's not spin. Maybe the councilmember doesn't know the truth - that there have been extensive negotiations between Verizon and County Executive Doug Duncan.

Dear Councilmembers: MC and Verizon have been negotiating. Back in May of 2005, I reported that the county announced it had officially entered into negotiations with Verizon. Since then, the county has shared nothing publicly. Everything was secret - at least they tried to keep it secret. As an example, a few months ago, I reported some of the disagreements based on FCC filings. (See World's Apart.)

It's true that an application has not been filed but the reason why is not as simple as has been reported in the press. At a May 19 2005 hearing, the county specifically instructed Verizon not to file such an application until county officials had approved the principle terms. FCC filings confirm this. A history of the negotations can be found beginning on page 27 of Verizon's filing in the US District Court. (Thanks to JT, a Rockville citizen, for this link.)

At a February 2006 TAC meeting, the Advisory Committee was similarly informed that the Executive was unwilling to "file" the application - which would've resulted in sending it to the council for consideration, according to the Cable Office. (See 5th paragraph of Negotiations Going From None To Worse.) The filing step is indicated by the "Application Accepted for Filing" box in this flowchart.

Reading this narrative in Verizon's legal filing is almost as confusingly enjoyable as the Da Vinci Code. (I'm sure there's a dead body in here somewhere.) It recounts many meetings, discussions, proposals, and counter-proposals starting in May '05 to a final meeting in April '06 when the parties stopped communicating entirely. Ironically, while failing to cooperate with each other, both sides were sending filings to the FCC describing the inability to make progress. If you want justification for a national franchise bill, here it is. Montgomery County, Maryland: Poster child for the death of local franchising.

Specific Demands

By now you may have read some of the demands that Verizon is making and some of the demands that Verizon has claimed have been made by the county. I'm not going to go through all of these because it requires a better legal background than I have as well as knowledge that is currently buried only in the files of the two parties.

However, I will discuss a few examples to point out what I see as valid claims on both sides as well as misleading, incendiary, and in some cases, downright stupid language all around. (What's the legal term for stupid?) For example, Verizon claims that MC is asking for a franchise fee on all revenues. And the existing franchises do sound that way. They use phrases such as 5% of gross revenues without mentioning that certain things (e.g., internet service) are off the table. So Verizon could technically be correct that MC is "asking" for franchise fees on everything - but it's already settled law that Verizon doesn't have to pay such fees.

Some claims have more meat to them. For example, the claim that MC is requesting 65 PEG channels is based on MC's demand for 78Mhz (sufficient for 13 analog channels) worth of bandwidth. Verizon is restating this in the most damning way and without admitting that Comcast and RCN are already providing roughly the same thing already. It's particularly unfortunate because Verizon does have a good point that is obscured by its hyperbole - that using dedicated analog channels is archaic. Even worse, writing such language in the franchise is shortsighted. Even if Verizon decides to deliver PEGs that way today, it shouldn't have its hands tied tomorrow. Technology changes too rapidly. (Whether MC actually needs so many channels is a separate issue; Personally, I think it makes more sense to stream PEG programming on demand, perhaps via IPTV, and supply whatever connection or hardware is needed, gratis or at a nominal cost.)

This brings us to one of the biggest difficulties in the negotation - that Verizon is a different type of company with a different infrastructure than that of a traditional cable company. Whereas cable companies started with a cable system that has only recently incorporated other services, Verizon started with a telecomm system which only recently added "cable service" (video service would be a much better term, but that's history for you). And this colors the view of how much of the combined service can be regulated using traditional cable service regulation because local regulatory jurisdiction over a telecomm facility is allowed only "to the extent that such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers." (1984 Cable Act.) Must Verizon find that most of its traditional telephone service is now subject to regulation because it shares the same infrastructure as its cable service? How much is really shared? As a simple example, consider a customer who's cable service is improperly grounded - a safety issue that the county would normally investigate. Now consider his neighbor whose internet service is improperly grounded. The physical connections and risks are exactly the same and yet, the neighbor has no cable service. Does this mean Verizon isn't subject to the cable safety regulations?

In fact, this has been a dilemma for the county with Comcast as well. But it was easier to make the argument that all Comcast services were inherently cable-related at some level. Indeed, that's why Comcast claimed that the creation of MC's Cable Modem regulations would require no changes to their practices. Not only do they share the same plant, the same line technicians, but they share the same everything - all the way up to billing and marketing! With Verizon, this is not the case.

Needless to say, the county wants to treat Verizon exactly the same as Comcast and RCN with essentially the same franchise. Not surprisingly, Verizon won't swallow this. I'm sure the county recognizes this but yet is horrified with the idea of the alternatives:

Alternative 1: Different franchises would likely encourage Comcast and RCN to sue for unequal treatment.
Alternative 2: Renegotiating franchises with all 3 - Comcast, RCN, and Verizon - would be a nightmare.

The irony is that the county is absolutely right to require equal treatment. While I don't agree with all of MC's demands, there's little doubt that the differences between telecomms and cable companies are disappearing (or will as soon as the FCC lets them). In that sense, the county is doing the right thing. Alas, they're ahead of their time and thereby dooming us all to this massive quagmire in which we now find ourselves.

What to do? One way MC could resolve the situation would be to drop the demands that are objectionable to Verizon by also dropping them from the Comcast and RCN franchises. As an example, Comcast and RCN have lived with the customer service requirements on cable modems. But Verizon has objected to these same regulations. I used to feel strongly about the cable modem regulations but that was before Executive Duncan gutted them in 2003. What's left are either 1) superficial things like telephone answering time and 2) more essential things like "prompt service" requirements that, while valuable, might be sufficiently addressed by the reality of competition. Remember that the cable modem regulations were passed when Comcast was the de facto monopoly for most of MC. (Indeed, the low percentage of complaints in RCN areas are a good indication of the value of competition. Sadly, I predict that RCN will be a victim of Verizon's success.)

Oh, and the cable modem regulations include another class of items: 3) those that are knowingly ignored, such as county approval over the franchisee privacy polices and disclosure of all promos. Were I Verizon, I'd get the cable modem regulations thrown out on that basis alone. Wouldn't hurt to point out that that they're probably unenforceable anyway given their remarkably vague definitions. For instance, is it an interruption if I can surf the web but email is down? No one knows - the regulations never say what Cable Modem Service actually is!

Most recently, MC appears to have taken a different path, giving up the goal of franchise commonality and instead proposing different requirements. For example, one proposal by MC was for Verizon to provide 100 wireless hotspots around the county. (No mention was made how much it would cost residents to actually use the hotspots.) This was in lieu of traditional in-kind contributions afforded franchise authorities. However, the county doesn't need more of the traditional in-kind contributions, isn't entitled to them by law, nor is it entitled to demand different in-kind contributions - hotspots are simply not on the list of what a franchise authority is entitled to! MC also requested that Verizon cover attorney fees and other fees for handling and reviewing the franchise process - with no cap on those fees. The list of such demands goes on and it's pretty clear that these are excessive - a case of the county asking for something it has no right to except that it can because it has the final say on who gets an franchise.

Instead, what the county should be doing is cutting the demands for in-kind contributions from Comcast and RCN. Then, MC could fairly ask Verizon to shoulder the burden.

The Likely Future

If the case goes forward, I'll be amazed. On the one hand, I want it to go forward so that I can find out more details about what's been going on out of public view. (It drives me crazy when governments abuse their own processes to carry out decision-making in secret that was meant to be done in public view and with public participation. This alone is grounds for legal action.) On the other hand, I'd like this case to be settled so we can get the benefits of competition while avoiding the drawbacks of the pending national franchise bill. (Can't wait to start describing that!)

In the future, I'm confident that Verizon will get a franchise in Montgomery County. There is too much pressure for MC to resist. The citizens are very upset and rightfully so considering how much this is costing them - in legal fees as well as their monthly cable bills. And the lawsuit is a lose-lose suitation for MC. Even if MC wins, it loses. But it won't go that far. The telecomms are lobbying too heavily for the national franchise bill not to succeed before the lawsuit concludes. (On net neutrality alone, the telecomms have spent $9.1M to defeat it!) One way or the other, MC will get competition.

Verizon Files Suit Against Montgomery County

2006-06-29T22:20:00.000-04:00

Today , Verizon sued Montgomery County, Maryland. I've never reprinted a press release before but this one speaks for itself:

June 29, 2006

Media contact:
Harry Mitchell, 304-344-7562

WASHINGTON - In an effort to bring video choice and competition to citizens of Montgomery County, Maryland, Verizon today filed a federal lawsuit against the county for its unreasonable and illegal cable-franchising process and demands.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Greenbelt, asks the court to declare that Montgomery County's cable franchise process and requirements violate federal communications and antitrust law, as well as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Verizon is asking the court for a preliminary injunction invalidating Montgomery County's current cable franchising law and directing the county to negotiate a franchise with Verizon on lawful terms within 60 days. At the same time - in an effort to help speed the negotiations to resolution - Verizon is asking the court to invalidate the numerous unlawful requirements the county is attempting to impose on the company.

"Verizon regrets having to take this step, but the county's unlawful demands leave us no other choice," said John P. Frantz, Verizon vice president and associate general counsel, who is leading the company's legal team on the case. "We would prefer to reach agreement on a franchise that would offer Montgomery County consumers more choice for their cable services, but after a year of essentially fruitless negotiations, we are at an impasse."

Montgomery County's Demands Hurt Consumers, Protect Incumbent

Over the year that Verizon has been negotiating to obtain a franchise to offer its FiOS TV in Montgomery County, county officials have made numerous unlawful demands that have stymied the negotiations. For example:
The county asserts the right to collect fees on, and otherwise regulate, Verizon's telephone and broadband Internet service, in clear violation of federal law. In addition, the county claims authority to regulate the engineering, construction, placement and maintenance of Verizon's entire fiber-optic network once the company starts offering video service, again in clear violation of federal law.
The county is demanding that Verizon set aside roughly 65 channels of digital capacity for public, educational and governmental programming, even though the county currently has programming for only 11 channels. Verizon wants to use the channels the county is insisting the company set aside to deliver programming that county residents want to see.
The county is demanding that Verizon pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover the fees that the county owes to its own private consultants and attorneys; federal law forbids such demands.
The county is demanding additional cash and free services as a condition for granting a franchise; it has no right to demand such terms under established federal law.
"We're frustrated at the lack of progress in these negotiations, because the inordinate delay benefits only the monopoly cable incumbent," said Frantz. "Meanwhile, Montgomery County residents continue to suffer, held hostage to Comcast's ever-rising cable rates."

Comcast has increased Montgomery County cable rates more than three times the inflation rate since 2000. In Montgomery County, the stalled franchise negotiations are costing county households more than $725,000 a month in possible savings.

"Competition will bring lower prices, more innovation and better quality," said Frantz. "It's past time for Montgomery County residents to join their neighbors in Howard County and Northern Virginia who are reaping the benefits of cable competition and choice."

Montgomery County is the only place in the Washington metropolitan area where Verizon has sought a franchise and has not been able to obtain one. In Maryland, Howard County, Bowie and Laurel have all granted Verizon a franchise; Anne Arundel County is poised to do so July 5; and Verizon's negotiations with Prince George's County are on track for an agreement by late summer. In northern Virginia, Verizon has obtained franchises from Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties; the City of Fairfax, Dumfries, Herndon, Falls Church and Leesburg; and the Marine Corps Base at Quantico.

Montgomery County Neighbors Enjoy Cable Choice, Competition

In other markets where Verizon has introduced FiOS TV - including neighboring Howard County - cable incumbents have responded with lower prices, more innovative bundled offerings of phone, broadband and video service, and increased broadband speeds.

Verizon's standard FiOS TV package, FiOS TV Premier, offers 180 digital video and music channels, two dozen high-definition channels and access to an extensive on-demand library for $39.95 a month. Comcast's most comparable cable package costs $68.60 in Montgomery County.

A family that switched to Verizon's video offering would save more than $300 a year and get more for its money. Verizon currently offers numerous other channels not provided by Comcast, including the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which broadcasts Washington Nationals baseball games.

The competitive response to Verizon's entry to the video market is swift and dramatic. In communities where Verizon already is offering FiOS TV, incumbents initially responded by slashing prices by 28-42 percent.

"Verizon's interest in this is simple," said Frantz. "We want the ability to bring choice and competition to Montgomery County consumers as quickly as possible, and we want Montgomery County officials to do the right thing by their constituents to make that happen."

More Detail

A summary document provides more detail about the basis for Verizon's lawsuit. Some of it sounds accurate and some of it doesn't but without the filings (not yet available), I can only speculate (and will do so as I find out more info). In the meantime, here is the summary document:

SUMMARY OF VERIZON’S COMPLAINT AGAINST MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
In May 2005, Verizon asked Montgomery County to grant a franchise to offer cable service in competition with Comcast. A full year later, the county has failed to approve Verizon’s application. Instead, county officials have responded by demanding that Verizon agree to a host of unlawful requirements as a condition for getting a franchise.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY’S ILLEGAL ACTIONS

Montgomery County’s Cable Franchising Process Violates the First Amendment.
By adding cable television to its menu of communications services, Verizon seeks to engage in a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Local laws licensing speakers must spell out narrow, objective standards that limit the discretion of government officials in deciding whether to grant franchises and what conditions may be attached.
Montgomery’s County’s cable franchise process violates the First Amendment because it delegates to county officials discretion to approve or withhold franchises at will, to charge any fees they wish, to condition franchises on any demands they see fit, and to render decisions on any timeline they choose.
The First Amendment requires that local authorities issue franchises in a timely manner. Yet county officials told Verizon it would take until at least November 2006 to grant a franchise, even if Verizon agreed to all the county’s illegal demands – a full 18 months after Verizon first asked for a franchise.
Montgomery County’s Franchise Demands Violate the Federal Communications Act.
The Communications Act expressly prohibits local governments from exploiting their control over cable franchises to seize control over telephone and broadband Internet services. Yet county officials have, by ordinance and regulation, imposed a host of requirements on broadband and telephone services, as well as a series of rules governing the construction, operation and maintenance of Verizon’s telephone network, to which Verizon would be subject once it begins offering video service.
The county has no justification for these requirements. Verizon is selling broadband and telephone services in Montgomery County today free from these regulations. There is nothing about Verizon’s offering video programming that suddenly creates a need to regulate its other services.
Federal law limits the fees the county can collect to 5 percent of Verizon’s cable revenues. Montgomery County’s cable ordinance requires Verizon to pay 5 percent of its revenues on all services, including Internet service.
In addition, to secure a franchise, the county has demanded that Verizon pay an additional 3 percent of its revenues to cover the county’s cable programs; provide free cable service to hundreds of government and private buildings around the county; pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover the county’s consultants’ and attorneys’ fees; and provide additional cash or free services on top of all these other concessions. Federal law prohibits all of these demands.
The county’s contention that its actions are justified because it imposed the same requirements on Comcast is specious. Comcast’s franchise provides that if the county negotiates an agreement with a new entrant that requires smaller monetary contributions, Comcast can renegotiate its agreement to match those terms. This is not a question of competitive equity, but of county officials being unwilling to part with the perquisites offered by a cable monopolist.
The county does not need the money. It is projecting a surplus of roughly $1 million for its cable fund in fiscal year 2007.
Montgomery County Is Enforcing Its Franchise Agreement With Comcast in a Way That Violates Federal Antitrust Law.
Congress outlawed exclusive franchises in 1992. Prior to that, cable operators often offered perks over and above what the law required in order to win monopoly control of a market. The cable operator could then exploit its monopoly position to recoup the costs of these give-aways. Incumbent cable operators continue to employ this strategy to raise barriers to entry.
The county has interpreted Comcast’s franchise agreement to block the county from offering a franchise agreement to a Verizon on different terms. This halts competition and protects Comcast’s monopoly. By entering into an agreement with Comcast that ensures the county will impose cost-prohibitive terms on new entrants, effectively blocking entry, the county has violated federal antitrust laws.
COMPETITION WILL BENEFIT MONTGOMERY COUNTY CONSUMERS

If allowed to compete in Montgomery County, Verizon’s FiOS TV will introduce much-needed competition and create significant benefits for cable customers.

The Lack of Cable Competition Is Harming Montgomery County Consumers.
Control of the Market … Comcast currently controls the video market in Montgomery County. Roughly two-thirds of all households in the county, and roughly 75 percent of households that purchase cable or satellite service, subscribe to Comcast.
Rising Prices … Because of a lack of competition, Comcast has been able to raise prices in Montgomery County by 25 percent since 2000 – nearly three times the rate of inflation. From 2004-2005, Comcast raised prices by 6 percent.
No Competition … While satellite service is available, the FCC has determined that satellite is not effective at constraining price increases by cable companies.
Competition Can Constrain Comcast’s Price Increases.
Competition Works … In its March 2006 report on video competition, the FCC found that in areas with real cable competition, monthly cable rates are 16 percent lower and customers pay 27 percent less per programming channel.
Delay Costs Consumers … Nationwide, the delay in wireline competition is creating economic losses of between $8.2 billion and $21.4 billion per year.
Montgomery County Consumers Are Paying a Huge Price … Thomas Hazlett, an economist at George Mason University who submitted a declaration in support of Verizon’s case, concluded that the county’s actions are costing residents more than $725,000 per month.
Verizon’s FiOS TV: A Much-Needed Competitor in Montgomery County.

Customers who switch to Verizon will save money. Verizon’s standard digital package costs $28.65 less than the comparable package offered by Comcast in Montgomery County. A family in Montgomery County that switches to Verizon could save more than $300 per year.

Even customers who don’t subscribe to FiOS TV will benefit from competition. In communities where Verizon has been allowed to compete, cable prices have dropped 28 to 42 percent.
In Keller, Texas, the first location where FiOS TV began competing, Charter lowered its rate by $16 per month or 28 percent.
In Herndon, Va., Cox dropped its price from $52.44 per month to $30 per month after FiOS TV entered the market.
In Temple Terrace, Fla., Bright House lowered its price from $58.45 per month to $36.33 per month.
Verizon carries the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which broadcasts Washington Nationals baseball games. This is just one of the many channels Verizon carries that Comcast does not.

Anyone from the Montgomery County Executive's Office or Cable Office care to respond?

No Shows All Around

2006-06-24T23:23:00.000-04:00

This week's Telecomm Advisory Committee meeting was lightly attended. The Verizon representative rumored to be there wasn't. A rep from RCN (aka StarPower) was officially given time on the agenda - and didn't show. And the two humiliated Comcast reps from last month didn't return.

And they might have been justified. Indeed, Jane Lawton was absent as well. As I understand it, she's officially back as the MC Cable Administrator but also still serving as a state delegate. The term was supposed to be over last month but the Governor wanted the entire Maryland General Assembly to stick around for awhile and try to address soaring energy rates. And her office reports that Jane will be running for her delegate position again. Since fall elections aren't that far away, it's only fair to wonder how much time she'll have to commit to cable issues during the campaign season.

One thing on Jane's mind is that her future may be more secure in Annapolis than in Montgomery County. Bills currently pending in Congress appear likely to strip away local cable regulation and pass it over to the FCC. Is that good? Well, it's good if you're concerned about obscene language. Regulating four-letter words on broadcast TV - the FCC has been good. But reining in soaring cable costs - not so good. And unless you can get a hundred thousand of your close friends to write to the FCC that your bill is wrong or your cable drop wasn't buried deep enough and was just cut by the landscapers, well, forget it.

The leading bill in Congress would nationalize the franchise system. The obvious benefit: Competition. According to Consumers Union, Americans who have a choice between two cable companies pay about 17% less on average. And cost is only one aspect that would likely improve. Being able to choose another provider (even if only one other choice) gives you a lot of power. All of a sudden, you're in control over who gets your hard-earned coin.

Is competition a total win? No. Although service may improve from competition, another concern is that the new bill contains no language forcing companies to provide service to everyone. If you live in a demographically-incorrect area, you may be out of luck. Well, you can move. Or band together with neighbors for community WiFi or community fiber. Hey, the local government may find a new role supporting these efforts! (Indeed, amendments to the bill support this idea.)

Sadly, the propaganda from both sides distorts the true advantages and disadvantages. For example, even traditional franchises have never provided guarantees of so-called universal coverage (a concept in and of itself of questionable merit). I take issue with claims of the Cable Office and its lobbying organization(s) as much as I take issue with the claims of the cables and the telecomms.

There are many other issues affected by these proposed bills (net neutrality being another world of distortion propaganda). I'm not going to get into them except to mention that the details in the bills are far from settled. It's been reported that there were over 200 amendments tacked on to the leading bill and god only knows what will happen once the bill goes into conference where legislators will add language never before seen by the public. From articles I've read in the Post, interested companies have sent hundreds of lobbyists to Capitol Hill and are spending millions of dollars per day pushing their interests on members of Congress.

Think Local

So what does this all mean locally? Well, the latest word from the Cable Office is that, once again, there has been no progress on a video franchise for Verizon in Montgomery County Maryland. Although no one is talking freely, it is apparent that nothing will happen locally until the bills in Congress either pass or die. And it seems pretty clear that the fighting will rage on for months. Bottom line: Unless MC and Verizon start talking, it will be at least a year before we see FIOS TV, even under a national franchise.

Curiously, the Cable Office had a meeting the following day (Thursday, June 22 '06) to which it invited the municipalities that MC normally represents in franchise negotations. According to the Cable Office, the meeting was to inform the municipalities of the status of the Verizon franchise. But why now - when there's been zero change in the status for months? Is it possible that some of the unhappy munis are negotiating with Verizon on the side, desparate to get around the county deadlock? If so, the county would surely like to squelch that before a domino effect completely undermines the county's position. Can any municipal representatives reading this offer their insights?

Vital This

As if to remind us that they are still a vital piece of the system, the Cable Office noted that:

Comcast complaints were up last month, primarily regarding exposed drops.
Comcast was out of compliance with respect to several different customer service measures and has thus been sent a warning as a prelude to a fine if they don't come back into compliance within the next quarter.
RCN was late with franchise fees so they will now owe late fees. As I recall, the same thing happened last year. Is it serious cash-flow problems at RCN or just utter incompetence in their finance department? Too bad - because the county received only 3 billing complaints from RCN subscribers for the entire month of May. That's it. No customer service complaints, no installation complaints, no marketing complaints. That's a good record.

I shouldn't be too hard on the Cable Office. I appreciate the fine work they do - and yet I'm also frustrated at the limited reach they have given the fees they collect. (Did I mention that language in the national bill will ensure that locals continue to get their 5% franchise fee?) For example, the Cable Office is great at investigating safety issues such as ungrounded drops but the Cable Office can't touch frustrations like the incompetence of the phone reps at Comcast and the inability to be able to speak to a knowledgeable supervisor. (At last month's meeting, one TAC member speculated that Comcast doesn't actually have supervisors. It's just an empty title so that the front-line reps can say that "There are no supervisors around now, but I'll have one call you back." Has anyone been called back by a supervisor? Ever?)

And there's nothing that local regulators can do about prices in the upper tiers and the creative games that Comcast plays in making packages that include channels that no one wants. As an example of this nonsense, last month Comcast introduced a new package: The Family Tier, nominally for child-safe TV watching. Let's be honest - the only child-safe TV watching is no TV watching. The true reason for Comcast's new package was to head off Congressional interest in forcing a la carte subscriptions. A la carte would allow people to subscribe to just the channels they want. But this is the last thing that video providers want to provide. They figure that by offering a few more packages, they can claim that they are providing people with choice. And so far, Congress appears to have gone along with this charade. Have any customers swallowed this nonsense and signed up for this tier?

Triple Play Attraction/Repulsion

2006-06-13T23:33:00.000-04:00

At dslreports.com, Karl Bode wrote about the Triple Play concept that I analyzed recently. As I said at the time, it's got some benefits but a whole lotta negatives. For example, in Comcast's case, the big negative is price. You ought to be getting a deal; in reality, the 'deal' is awful. And Karl notes that few customers are signing up for triple plays (and in some cases, quadruple plays). Here's Karl's take:

Karl Bode On The Triple Play

If you listened solely to ISP press releases, you'd think that the triple-play bundle is all the rage, and that the majority of customers are lining up to pay one company $100+ for three or more services. In reality, most customers still prefer to grab one or two services, and frequently can net better bargains by shopping around for their third or fourth service - be that video, wireless, or VoIP.

According to a Jupiter Research survey from March, only five percent of subscribers sign up for the triple-play, and only around a quarter of all customers are interested in nabbing all services from a single provider. "The assumption that everybody wants a bundle is flawed," a Jupiter analyst told the Washington Post last March.

This week a new study by Pyramid Research claims most customers are interested in either one or two services. The study finds that "most telcos are selling 1 to 1.5 revenue generating units (RGUs, aka one service) per customer while cable companies perform slightly better, selling around 1.5 to 1.9 RGUs per customer" (thanks to cable deploying VoIP faster than telcos are deploying video).

The report almost laughs at the idea of the "quadruple play."

Occasionally you'll catch rare candid admissions by incumbents that customers aren't quite as keen on the triple-play as their press releases would lead you to believe. For example, Time Warner's CFO recently admitted that only 7% of his company's customers subscribe to three services, and the majority only purchased a single service.

Whenever this topic is breached, there's a chicken and the egg debate here that springs up: are customers really saving significant money by bundling? Or are they being penalized for not bundling in environments where competitive choices are lacking? Comcast's stand-alone broadband service remains ridiculously expensive for someone who doesn't watch television. Similarly, stand-alone VOIP from Comcast costs a whopping $55.

Bundling is, in part, an effort by providers to obfuscate the real price of services, clouding the consumer's ability to directly compare single-service prices. Once a customer has switched to a single-provider, they're frequently greeted by unexpected fees, and the cost-savings they expected are nowhere to be found.

Upcoming Advisory Committee Meeting

The next CCAC (aka TAC or Telecommunications Advisory Committee) meeting is scheduled for June 21 at 7pm. The meeting will be held in Room 225 at 100 Maryland Ave., Rockville, and is rumored to include a Verizon representative. It would be nice if she were to address the status of the FIOS TV franchise but I don't expect it - all the negotations are being kept private - although snatches have escaped on occasion. At the same time, franchises are being hotly debated in Congress so a local franchise may be a moot point. Verizon may well have written off the MC franchise given its success to date lobbying Congress for national franchise legislation (it's already passed in the House).

If you'd like a question posed, send it directly to your CCAC representatives. You can check the Frapper map to find your nearest CCAC representative (look for the green icons). Most of them are publicly listed in the white pages. Call one up and express your thoughts. These people represent you!

The Best Deal For Comcast Customers

2006-06-01T01:04:00.000-04:00

Computers are too damn complex. When my email stops working, I know how difficult it can be to narrow down the problem. Is it my broadband provider? My mail provider? My computer? My router? My toaster oven?

I have a more complex setup than most people - I use a 3rd party email provider. I accept the additional complexity of this but many people would not - they want the same provider for both email and broadband. They figure that broadband providers provide basic email service for free anyway. Plus, there's less fingerpointing when things break.

Wouldn't it be even better if we could simplify even further? Hey, broadband providers can! Internet service, video service, and phone service all from one company. One bill. One number to call for problems. Lately, I've been seeing the One Bill mantra played up more and more in advertisements. Not so much for the One Number For Problems though - I guess no one wants to focus on problems (especially when there are so many of them).

A Good Time Was Had By Almost All

I was reminded of the goal of simplification during the most recent meeting of the Montgomery County TAC (Telecommunications Advisory Committee) on May 18 2006. A good time was had by all. Well, all except the two Comcast representatives who gave a briefing to the committee. Admitting that things had not been going well in Montgomery County for some time, Angela Lee and Erin Pinkney attempted to put the right spin on it.

Angela, Comcast Senior Director of Government Affairs for MC and PG (and soon to include Frederick, thanks to the purchase of the Adelphia market but pending a lawsuit) described how complaints were now at a "very low level, lower probably than in years." Oooh, don't you just love unprovably vague assertions?!

Let's recast that in a different (but equally vague) way: Comcast's complaint levels have been so bad for so long, that anything has to be better. (See how this game is played?)

Attempting to shift the blame as much as possible, Angela noted that the number of problems (without giving an actual number, of course) due to Verizon construction was down significantly. (So Comcast replacing their area General Manager was just an everyday personnel change?)

Remind Me Why I'm Here

Erin Pinkney, Area Director of Marketing for Comcast, then had her turn. Apparently under a total misimpression as to her purpose for being at the meeting, she launched into a description of Comcast's latest products. Actually, a better phrase would be Comcast's latest marketing because that's all it was. Same products, different promos.

The committee politely listened to Erin go on about how customers want simplification (which she termed "lifestyle simplification" ) for about 15 minutes. Finally one committee member rudely interrupted and said: So my cable was cut for 3 weeks - no service - and only after I filed an official complaint with the county did I get a temporary drop. You promised me it would be replaced in 30 days but it's been 5 weeks - when are you going to fix it already?

At this point, the concept of simplification fell on the floor as committee members let loose with a barrage of questions and comments - paraphrased below. After each, I've shown Comcast's paraphrased response:

TAC: You're offering phone service? What are your reliability figures?
TAC: How can we be assured that your E911 is reliable?
TAC: I wouldn't trust my phone service to Comcast.
Erin: We have a new culture at Comcast!

TAC: How will you deal with phone outages? These are important!
TAC: How can I report outages if my Comcast phone is out?
Erin: Ask our Director of Technical Operations!

TAC: Why doesn't Comcast send out people who can fix the problem? I'm tired of getting people visit me who say "Oh, you need a line tech."
Erin: Miss Utility is causing severe delays!

TAC: Why can't we get Nats games?
Erin: We're negotiating!

TAC: Why is Comcast failing to provide us with FCC-required close-captioning statistics.
Erin: Write us a letter.
TAC: We did already!
Erin:

TAC: We're still seeing Verizon-related construction problems.
Angela: Yes, but less so.

TAC: Channels are disappearing from the analog band, will we get price reductions?
Erin: No, but we'll give you a free month of digital!

TAC: Why are additional digital boxes so expensive?
Erin: ... completely non-responsive ...

As you can tell from the last answer, I got tired of writing down questions followed by non-responsive answers. Indeed, the only reason I wrote down as many as I did is because they were, quite simply, outrageously entertaining in their non-responsiveness. Ok, the answer to the Nats question was responsive ... albeit useless.

To elaborate on a few:

Erin used the phrase new culture at Comcast several times in her answers. This came up yet again after one extended diatribe by a committee member who works for Geeks On Call. He frequently has to call Comcast on a customer's behalf - so he's got plenty of experience. He described typical interactions like this:

Comcast: Do you have your own router?
Customer: Yes.
Comcast: Then the problem must be in your router!

After describing how unhelpful the Comcast phone reps were, the same committee member asked directly: So what do you mean by "new culture at Comcast"?
Erin: I mean a new culture from a marketing perspective!

That certainly left everyone speechless! And in response to another question, Angela expanded: There is a focus on customer service! and she requested to Bear with us! Hmm, I've never seen that latter phrase in Comcast's advertisements!

Promos That Backfire

Speaking of ads, Angela and Erin went over a new promotion: the Comcast Triple Play. It works like this: If you don't already subscribe to all three of video, internet, and phone, you can do so at $33/month for each additional service for 12 months.

Who might find this attractive? I see the pricing targeted at 3 different groups:

Comcast TV and HSI (internet) customers who don't like the high price Comcast is asking for phone service.
Comcast TV customers who don't have Comcast HSI but are looking at (or already have) Verizon FIOS and traditional phone service.
Comcast HSI customers who already have satellite TV and traditional phone service.

In each case, there are substantial discounts to be had. For example in case 1, Comcast's deal is a 17% discount off their nominal cost of phone service. In case 2, Comcast is undercutting their own internet price by 23% as well as Verizon FIOS by 8%.

There are some differences in the internet service between Comcast and Verizon and I'm not going to go any further into that. And I'm not going to try to compare Comcast TV with the satellite equivalents - because they're harder to compare.

But it is easy to find a better price for phone service than Comcast's deal (which quite frankly is absurdly overpriced). Indeed, Verizon's VoiceWing (unlimited nationwide) package is $24.95. And there are even cheaper deals out there.

But if you want lifestyle simplification (to use Erin's phrase), Verizon should be considered. For example, say you're the typical long-term Comcast customer considering Comcast's offer for their Triple Play. So you have Comcast HSI+TV and are paying $96.60 (before taxes and fees). Add on Comcast phone for the special $33 and you're up to $129.60. But if you wanted to get the same three comparable services from Verizon, it would be Verizon-DirecTV ($44.99) + VoiceWing ($24.95) + FIOS ($34.95) for a total of $104.95. That's significantly lower. And the disparity is even greater if you're a Comcast Digital TV customer.

So if you're a new customer, the Comcast deal looks good - $99 for all three services. That's $5.95 less than Verizon. But Comcast's deal doesn't look too good if you're an existing Comcast customer. For substantial savings, you're far better off switching to Verizon. (Plus you get significantly higher upload speeds.)

Ironic, isn't it? If this new Comcast promo makes anything clear, it is that the best deal for Comcast customers is to leave Comcast.

Not Secret, Just Sad

2006-05-31T23:11:00.000-04:00

Comcast

Since I wrote about Comcast's failure to make their rates public, Comcast has notified me that their rate page for Montgomery County has been restored and updated to reflect current rates. Here is the URL:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/comcast_mo_co/Index.html/Products-1.htm.

However, I still see that the Comcast rate page does not include rates offered by Comcast marketing partners such as comcastoffers.com and comcastspecial.com. In my last discussion with Comcast Customer Advocate Gloria Looper, she maintained that such offers are not subject to the disclosure requirements of MC. I think she's wrong and I will file an official complaint with the county's Cable Compliance Commission if Comcast fails to correct the omission in 30 days.

Verizon

Since Verizon is not presently a franchisee in MC, Verizon is not subject to the disclosure requirements. Hopefully that will change in the future.

But even from a marketing point of view, Verizon's website could do a much better job with providing rate information. The current website is confusion city - a disaster of poor user interface design combined with a push for products and bundles that don't make sense in our area.

As an example, when I go to www.verizon.com, roll my mouse over the word Residential, and suppress the immediate urge to click (even though it's a link) and instead wait for and click the Products and Services link that appears, I get a page with a bunch of banner ads, the largest of which is for DSL - which I already know I cannot get. In that page, I find a text link for FiOS. Clicking on that, I get prompted for my Verizon home number or asked to go to yet another page to enter my address. Since I don't have a Verizon phone, I select qualify by address, enter my address, get yet another page to confirm my address, and finally:

Our records indicate there is existing phone service at this location. Please enter the Verizon home phone number associated with this address so we can show you the specific high speed options available.

Yes, there is existing phone service (1st sentence is correct) but it ain't Verizon - so the request (2nd sentence) is impossible for me to fulfill. Indeed, I haven't had Verizon service at my address for three years! I've had VoIP for a year and a half; Before that, I was totally cellular.

So I have no number to enter and there's no alternative button or link to click. Entering my (non-Verizon) VoIP number anyway just takes me back to the earlier screen that prompts me to enter my address. Entering it, I see that I have indeed fallen into a loop. Sigh.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. When I click on the Bundles link from the Products and Services page, I get sent to another page that talks about DSL and traditional phone service, not FiOS and not their VoIP product (VoiceWing).

And remember how I resisted the urge to click on the Residential link earlier? Well, if you're not so fortunate (and I suspect most people won't be), you'll simply move your mouse to the word and click on it. This is the way web pages are supposed to work. You won't see the categories until it's too late - instead you'll have already ignored -- Your one-stop source for everything you need to stay connected at home. -- which previously occupied that space.

Then you'll be sent to a page that says nothing at all about FiOS and VoiceWing; Once more, it's all DSL and more useless packages. Oh, but there is a link for Product Recommender. However that turns out to ask totally confusing questions ("How do you prefer to make most of your phone calls? Landline, VoIP, or WireLess? Huh??) I particularly enjoyed the question asking which features are most important to me with one of the choices being realiability!

Is it possible that Verizon is losing potential customers because their web pages are so bad?

Secret Comcast Offers

2006-05-19T02:20:00.000-04:00

A Little History

In 2002, Comcast merged with AT&T Broadband. In Montgomery County, this merger required that Comcast sign a document transferring control of the existing video franchise. One of the more interesting parts of the transfer agreement was the following:

4.8. The Franchisee will, at all times, post on its website all available rates for any cable or other service that the Franchise offers, including any promotional or special rates.

Not long after Comcast agreed to this provision, they delivered. A page appeared on the Comcast site listing every rate. It listed not just their promotions but also every nickle-and-dime charge such as the cost of sockets, extra boxes, remotes, and so on. This page has disappeared - or more specifically has become orphaned. Short of someone telling you its explicit URL, there's no way to find it. Effectively, it may as well not exist. Indeed, I spoke to several people at Comcast about the page this week. All of them denied its existence.

Back to the Present

If I surf over to comcast.com now, enter a Montgomery County zip code, and click on Products and Services, I get a page with 11 different products. But the number of products that Comcast offers is vastly greater than that. Their old web page showed over 75 different rates! For example, do you want:

Digital Classic?
Digital Plus?
Digital Additional Outlet?
Cable Latino?
Premium? International Premium?
Which of 6 different equipment rental rates?
Extra IP addresses?
Mini-Amp?
and on and on...

Comcast also listed all their "Other Charges" such as:

Unreturned Digital Converter: $225
Unreturned HDTV Digital Converter: $325
Unreturned CableCard: $115
Late Payment Charge: $4

and of course...

Returned Check Charge: $25

It really helped consumers to be able to see all these. I was able to pay $29.95/month for the last 12 months thanks to one Comcast promo that I wouldn't otherwise have known about.

None of these rates appear on Comcast's Products and Services page now. Nor do offers that I see on other sites appear here. (For example, Comcastoffers.com shows a 6 month deal for $19.99/month. Nor do I see offers that I've heard from Comcast representatives verbally (such as their $33/month deal - more on this later).

Given the 93% jump in my cable bill this month (from $29.95 to $57.95) and unable to find the current list of rates so that I could make an informed decision as to what to do about it, I decided to file a complaint with the county over Comcast's failure to to provide their rates as required.

A day or two after submitting my complaint, I was contacted by Gloria Looper of Comcast's Customer Advocate Group. Gloria said several things:

Offers from outside companies: Comcast is not responsible for outside companies offering promos for Comcast service. She asserted that because it wasn't Comcast making the offer, it therefore didn't violate Comcast's agreement to publicize "rates that Comcast offers" even though the outside company was working with Comcast. I doubt this interpretation would hold up in court. Can Comcast really get out of promises by simply saying "We are not responsible for what our contractors are doing in our name?"
Complete list of rates: Gloria (who has worked as a customer advocate for Comcast for a long time) had never heard of such a thing nor was she able to find such a page herself. While I waited on the phone, she contacted the marketing department - they weren't aware of it either. (When I filed my complaint with the Cable Office, the county investigator who took my complaint knew exactly what I was talking about. He too knew the URL where the page used to be.)
Verbal offers from Comcast reps: Gloria at first adamantly denied the existence of such offers. Normally, it's pretty hard to support such claims but I felt I was on pretty solid ground with one example - Angela Lee (who heads the Government Affairs office at Comcast for our region) had described the $33 promo before the entire Advisory Committee just the day before. (The $33 offer: Subscribers that already have 1 or 2 Comcast services can add on all the remaining services at $33 per service to get Comcast's "triple play" of internet, video, and telephone.) Gloria had never heard of that either but after a another call to marketing, acknowledged its existence.
Intentionally suppressed prices: The Comcast website describes Comcast's telephone service but insists that you have to call to get the price. What kind of marketing gimmickry is this? Will they set the price depending on the neighborhood you are calling from? Gloria explained that ... oh never mind, I won't even bother to repeat her explanation because it made no sense. I suggested she consider this another violation of the Comcast agreement. She said she would look into it further.

Bottom Line

If you know Comcast's rate structure, you can use that knowledge to save yourself a substantial amount of money. But don't depend on Comcast's representatives to help you out. Some Comcast representatives don't know about the deals, have an incorrect understanding of them (believing many promos are only for new customers is a popular misconception), or simply lack the inclination to work on your behalf and steer you to the lowest rates. So it's a good idea to check for yourself.

But right now you can't check. Hopefully the county cable office will get Comcast to live up to their obligation to list all their promos and rates. Until then, I advise you to be very cautious about signing up for new Comcast services or agreeing to higher rates simply because you got a bill or someone at Comcast told you to pay such an amount.

Rockville Resolution Residuum

2006-05-14T23:46:00.000-04:00

On Monday, April 10, 2006, I attended a meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Rockville. On the agenda was the following:

Adoption of a resolution to encourage Verizon to install its Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) and make its FIOS service available to Rockville residents, and to comply with Rockville Permit and Rights-of-Way (ROW) Management requirements

The resolution was nominally a symbolic gesture that simply said Rockville wants Verizon to install its FIOS service already. Of course, politicians being what they are, the resolution took 3 pages and a half-hour presentation to state what I just said in the previous one sentence.

So what's the point of such a resolution? It's clear that it was not meant as a communique to Verizon. Rather, it was a self-defense against the citizens who have been pestering City Hall to no end. At least that's how I interpret this preface to the resolution:

Some citizen inquiries to the City have indicated that there is, among some citizens, a misunderstanding that the City is refusing to allow Verizon to install fiber optic cable and provide high-speed Internet service. The resolution seeks to clarify that the City is not refusing entry, and that the City encourages competition while appropriately managing the public ROW.

More Detail, More Money

To explain in more detail, Rockville wants Verizon to pay the following fees:

$4.35/ft for excavation of city streets
$2.20/ft for excavation of sidewalks and grassy areas
$0.06/ft for laying aerial lines

According to Rockville, Verizon has asked for an 85% discount on those fees.

Are these fees reasonable? Well, first let's examine what the fees are not for.

The fees are NOT for any direct damages caused by Verizon construction crews. If Verizon cuts a power cable, Rockville doesn't have to pay for it, Verizon does. The fees are NOT for repairs to the roadwork. If Verizon opens up a roadbed, Verizon has to restore it.

Fee This

So what are the fees for then? First of all, they're to cover the cost of infrastructure to collect the fees. If that was it, it would be ironic indeed - like tollbooths that continue to exist only to pay for their own upkeep. But that's not all. You also get a set of four ... oh wait, wrong commercial. The fees also pay for the upkeep of the rights-of-way (mowing the grass). That and plans, reviews of plans, plan permits, plan revisions, applications, application reviews, studies, variances, inspections, verifications, investigations for work without a permit. And meetings like the one I attended.

Undoubtedly there is some justifiable work in there but it sure makes you wonder how much is necessary. Wait, no need to wonder. The city hired consultants to count the beans. (Throw in a couple more beans for the cost of the consultants.)

The consultants report explained that the fees are set to recover all expenses involved related to the permits: city buildings, computers, support of the IT department, staff labor, pensions, ... everything. The premise underlying this computation is that... for any services benefiting or being provided to individuals, and not society as a whole, the individuals should pay for the cost of the service.

That premise in and of itself certainly makes sense. But how does it apply to the current situation? Is Verizon's fiber a benefit to the community as a whole? Or is it a benefit to specific individuals?

Verizon Fiber - Benefit To All Or Some

It could be argued that since only some individuals will ever make use of Verizon fiber, it benefits individuals and not the public as a whole.

On the other hand, it could be argued that Verizon brings competition and presumably, lower prices and incentives to provide improved service, even to non-Verizon customers. Is that a benefit to the community as a whole? Ok, not everyone is a high-speed internet customer but then not everyone is a library patron either and yet we agree that libraries are a benefit to the community. And while libraries are not-for-profit, high-speed internet service is recognized by the government as a resource that is not simply significant but increasingly necessary to the quality of life in the community.

I'll side with the benefit to the community camp. Indeed, I think it's a no-brainer. And the consultants report agrees! Wait, didn't I just say the report justified the rates? Well, yes and no. The report also said that its recommendations do not apply to utilities, specifically naming telecommunications providers as excluded from its recommendations! And the report goes on to point out that there are additional circumstances in which it might be regarded as a reasonable policy to set fees at a level that does not reflect the full cost of providing the service. In either case, one has to wonder - is the council misreading the report? Or is there something else going on here?

Neither of these points were mentioned during the meeting. Indeed, it was startling what else wasn't mentioned.

No mention of what Comcast paid for ROW access in Rockville.
No mention of what Comcast paid for ROW access elsewhere in MC.
No mention of what Verizon paid for ROW access elsewhere in MC.
No mention of what other communities charge for ROW access outside MC.

Instead, the testimony dwelled on a limited set of facts and another set of what I would call innuendo-laden asides such as this one: the City has diligently and in good faith pursued these negotations and, when there have been delays, has repeatedly invited Verizon to continued negotations. You gotta love that kind of rhetoric. The City isn't saying Verizon is slime; but only the City is diligent and acting in good faith.

The testimony also repeatedly noted (proof by repetition):

The rates were fair based on other communities (without any evidence presented).
No other company has requested a discount (without any evidence as to whether other companies were made to pay the current rates).
A recent phone Verizon outage shows the burden Rockville must bear (without observing that Rockville was in part to blame).

In speaking to staff after the meeting, I was unable to get any further information concerning what Comcast may have paid either in Rockville or what either Comcast or Verizon paid elsewhere in Montgomery County. Subsequently, I contacted the Montgomery County Deptarment of Permitting Services and asked what Verizon was paying outside of Rockville. A representative could not give me specific figures but said that ROW permits were usually 'per job' and depended on things such as width and depth of cuts. However, he proceeded to offer top-of-the-head figures such as $97 for a minor road, $200 for a major road, or $1/ft for a grass shoulder.

The last figure is the only one directly comparable ($1/ft for MC, $2.20/ft for Rockville), however it should also be noted that Verizon in many cases doesn't even use the ROW in MC, either using easements (not subject to ROW agreements) or existing access for which they need pay no additional fee. (Some access requires an annual charge.)

While browsing the MC Permitting website later, I also noted the following: No fees are charged for most utility companies, but some utility companies & private companies doing work for utility companies are required to pay fees.

Bottom Line

Digging up figures from various jurisdictions and for various jobs was painful enough (and in part why this report was delayed as I waited and waited for responses that never came) that I'll dump it in Rockville's lap: I think Rockville has to explain the reason for the rates and why they are set so high as to be preventing competition in an area or, for that matter, why they are charged at all.

While it is true that Verizon's fiber upgrade in parts of the County has had significant problems and Rockville has a right to be concerned as they have ultimate responsibility, it also appears to be the case that Verizon is working out these problems, is acting in good faith, and has significantly improved to the point that Montgomery County wants Verizon to continue installing fiber to the remainder of the county as quickly as possible.

What I see here is not an economic cost-recovery issue but a political issue. Does Rockville want competition? Does Rockville have a vested interest in favoring a sole incumbent provider? I'd like to see the Rockville Mayor and Council cut out the hyperbole, drop the posturing, and think clearly and speak honestly regarding the future of competitive high-speed internet service in Rockville.

Meeting With Comcast

The next CCAC (aka TAC or Telecommunications Advisory Committee) meeting includes a Comcast representative (presumably the VP of Government Affairs). If you'd like a question posed, don't send it to me (which doesn't work now that the CCAC is refusing questions from the public during meetings). Instead, send questions directly to your CCAC representative.

You can check the Frapper map to find your nearest CCAC representative (look for the green icons). Most of them are publicly listed in the white pages. Call one up and express your thoughts. These people represent you!

Advisory Committee Meeting

2006-04-25T09:49:00.000-04:00

JT, a Rockville citizen, took up my request to attend the April 19 '06 advisory committee meeting . She took notes and made them available at dslreports.com. Thank you JT!

Bottom line: Montgomery County and Verizon continue to have discussions but there have been no breakthroughs nor is there any predicted timeline.

I keep hearing people talk about a timeline. The only timeline I know about is that it takes about 3 months to sign a franchise from application to approval at best and here in Montgomery County it has historically averaged 6 months.

Upcoming Meetings

2006-04-17T14:28:00.000-04:00

This Wednesday (April 19 '06), there will be a meeting of the county's advisory committee - the committee of citizens appointed by the Executive to provide advice to the Executive and the Council.

I will not be able to attend so I'm looking for someone to attend and take notes. Specifically, I'd like to hear any status reports from the Cable Office representative - not just regarding FIOS but anything else she might say.

The meeting will be in Rockville at the County Council Building (100 Maryland Avenue) and is scheduled for Room 114. (If no one's there, try Room 225 or the cafeteria, which is where they sometimes move to without much notice.)

In case you're not clear where Rockville is, look for the only place in the entire county without fiber to any homes.

Related Meetings

If you'd like to blow your entire Wednesday, here are two other related meetings:

The Telecommunications Transmission Facility Coordinating Group (aka the "Tower Committee") will be meeting earlier in the day at 2pm in Room 225. The Tower committee approves placements of towers and other telecommunications infrastructure.

The Cable Compliance Commission (CCC) will be meeting - also the same day and same building - in Room 114 at 4pm. The Commission hears complaints from cable customers who remain unsatisfied 30 days after having complained to the Cable Office.

Worlds Apart

2006-04-11T00:09:00.000-04:00

This latest Verizon status report is motivated by a document from the FCC website. It was noticed by a reader of this blog who posted it into the comments area - and evidentally wishes to remain anonymous. Thank you anonymous reader!

The document describes a meeting between Montgomery County officials and FCC officials to explore why Montgomery County was mentioned so prominently at the FCC's Keller TX hearings. During those hearings, Montgomery County was cited - the only jurisdiction to be so cited - as inhibiting the rollout of FIOS in 2006.

Is this true? The document goes on to describe a lengthy list of meetings and conference calls between Verizon and the county - roughly one per month beginning with the first back in May of 2005. Despite all these meetings, fingerpointing continues. After the Keller meeting, the FCC asserted that it would act to resolve such situations but that the claims it had heard so far regarding Montgomery County were simply too vague to act on.

Key Differences Between Verizon and Montgomery County

Now we get to the interesting part. In that same document, drafted by the county's own outside communications lawyers (Miller & Van Eaton - these are the guys pulling down the big bucks I referred to previously - $375K of the $451K that the Executive is budgeting for FY06 cable-related legal fees), is a table dated March 17 2006 and labelled Key Problems which I interpret as the current areas of disagreement. In a sense, this table of differences actually proves the claims that the FCC heard.

And both sides are unwilling to compromise. So what are the differences?

what can be regulated: Verizon wants regulatory oversight limited to the signal. Montgomery County (MC) is concerned with safety and rights-of-way and asserts authority over much of the cable system hardware.
3-year bailout option: If Verizon hasn't achieved a commercially reasonable level of subscriber penetration in 3 years, Verizon wants the option to leave the county. MC doesn't want to provide that option.
gross revenues: MC wants gross revenues to include anything related to the cable system: customer fees, advertising, PEG, etc. (The franchise fee is based on gross revenues, normally 5%.) Verizon wants gross revenues to exclude everything but TV fees.
police powers: MC wants its laws or other jurisdictional law to supercede the franchise. Verizon wants to prevent this, or if necessary, an escape clause so they can terminate the franchise or demand binding arbitration.
build-out: MC wants restrictions against redlining based on income, a fast deployment, and a requirement to serve all homes with density 15 or more homes per mile. Verizon wants a slower deployment, no redlining restriction, density of 30 or more homes, and the option to withhold rollout to homes or areas for a variety of reasons as determined by Verizon such as difficulty gaining access.
indemnification: MC wants Verizon to be responsible for any franchise-related claims (ranging from construction to copyright violations). As for what Verizon wants - this section of the chart is so vague that it appears Verizon wants to avoid responsibility for anything.)
PEG interconnects: Verizon wants guarantees against excessive cost to connect to PEG channel redistribution sites. MC wants Verizon to pick up the costs of PEG channel connections.

Wow - those are some serious differences. There are going to have to be significant and surprising compromises here.

Who will be the winner?

I could discuss the issues individually but it's easier to say the following: Although Verizon has dumped a huge wad of cash in our ground already, they can cut their losses and walk today. MC however is stuck. It can't leave! It has existing law and franchises on one side. On the other, it has citizens desperate for competition. And if MC doesn't do something, it will serve as the catalyst for those state and nationwide bills floating in Congress to assist competitors in situations like this.

My bottom line prediction: Montgomery County will cave on most of these issues. If it doesn't, it will get the short end of the stick anyway. Winner: Verizon. Do the citizens win? I don't know. They'll get competition and that's good. But they'll lose a lot of the regulation that the county has historically provided - and needed. But then, maybe it was needed only because there was no competition. One can only hope.

Let's Just Say Things Are Moving

2006-03-16T15:55:00.000-05:00

At the MC cable advisory meeting last night (March 15 '06), Acting Cable Administrator Amy Wilson said that negotiations with Verizon are proceeding slowly - which is a euphemism for "We're now so publicly embarrassed by what's going on, let's just say things are moving."

Amy later clarified that Verizon had transferred negotiating authority from their lawyers in Chicago to lawyers here in Maryland with the aside that it's been troublesome working with people in a different state. I don't understand - is dialing a different area code all that difficult? She added that MC Executive Duncan has a meeting scheduled with Verizon's Maryland team at some unknown date in the future. A Ouija board would've been less vague.

All of her "details" didn't add up to much. They imply nothing new as far as I can tell. But since that's what she said, that's what I'm obliged to say she said.

Do writing complaints to the Cable Office help? Amy noted that the Cable Office had received many complaints about the Verizon franchise - or lack thereof. (The only other big issue generating a large number of complaints was about Comcast not offering Nats games :-P) And not only are complaints piling up in her office, Duncan's office, and the Council's office, but they are making their way to the FCC. Indeed, Amy said that she is scheduled to give testimony before the FCC on why Montgomery County has become the poster child for why local politics + local franchises = disaster. She said it was her intent to tell the FCC that it was all Verizon's fault, not MC's. Given all the franchises Verizon has signed at a rapid clip (another one signed in PA earlier this week), I doubt the FCC will put much stock in her claim.

State Franchise in Maryland

So what's the possibility of bypassing the Montgomery County government and having a Verizon franchise approved by the state? State franchises have been signed in a number of states including, most recently, Virginia. But the state franchises are quite different than the local franchises. The Virginia agreement (draft) isn't a franchise in the traditional sense. Rather, the Cable Competition Act signed last week, allows companies to go around local franchise authorities that don't respond to offers within 45 days. The result allows a video franchise to be received just 30 days after that. This is shorter than the time it takes to get a video franchise via the local authority so this new law clearly undercuts the power of the local authority to make significant demands that they have traditionally made.

The Virginia law allows local government to require 80% coverage but only at a later time. For the first seven years, only 65% of a locality need receive coverage. Is this an issue? Yes - it begs for leaving large areas unconnected and at the company's discretion. They can hit the high-profit areas for 7 years and then cash out if things aren't going well - or jack up the rates if necessary.

But what about competition? Studies show that competition results in lower rates. According to Consumers Union, Americans who have a choice between two cable companies pay about 17% less on average. So areas like MC that effectively have cable everywhere already (well, almost everywhere) should be helped even by a (less-regulated) statewide franchise.

So what are the odds of something similar in Maryland? At the present time, the odds are very low. Like 0% low.

Why No Interest In Maryland?

For starters, the MD state legislature has not been lobbied by anyone for this, well, anyone but Verizon - the obvious beneficiary. Our own Jane Lawton, Cable Administrator for Montgomery County is currently serving as a state delegate so that's one more roadblock - she would surely fight persuasively against the transfer of her local power to the state.

On the other side of the coin is Comcast, which has its hooks deep into Maryland politics. The Washington Post has given extensive coverage to the connections over the last two weeks. The long and short is that Comcast not only has lobbyists plying the halls of Annapolis and Washington DC but has also directly employed several key government employees and/or spouses and this appears to have affected the passage of legislation in Maryland.

I'm not going to go through all their observations but it makes for fascinating reading. Here are the Post articles:

March 6 2006 Maryland's Dominant Cable Provider Has Strong Connections
March 6 2006 Prominent Ties Among Comcast Hires
March 7 2006 Md Lawmakers Call for Probe of Comcast Ties
March 7 2006 The First Lady's New Career
March 8 2006 Comcast Ties Entangle Ehrlichs
March 10 2006 Daddy Comcast
March 11 2006 Ehrlich Aide's Claim Regarding Comcast Unravels on Radio Program
March 17 2006 Regent's Business Dealings Detailed
March 17 2006 Nevins Connections

Bottom line: Expect no action at the state level. Montgomery County will continue on its own independent path for now.

Of course, that's not all bad. MC has a tough franchise and tough inspectors - and I like that. Indeed, new complaint figures suggest Comcast is improving. Last month, the Cable Office received 65 complaints about Comcast. This was the lowest number of complaints they've ever received! (Curiously, in that same timeframe, they received 7 complaints about Starpower, their highest number.)

But keep in mind what this costs you: a roughly 5% franchise fee amounting to $9 million countywide plus additional funds from various places bring the total cost to roughly $15.6M. Not to overwhelm you with too much detail, I'll mention just two items from that huge budget: $431K for legal fees (ouch!) and $189K to close caption CCM (the government PEG channel). These both sound like valid items but why are they so high?

Finally, I could be wrong about how beneficial a tough franchise is. After all, one theory is that this is the very reason why Verizon is so reluctant to sign a franchise in MC. And we've had this franchise for years and only recently has Comcast shown such low complaints numbers. Maybe it's the new leadership team at Comcast? Oh wait - could it be competition!?

The Brochure

Last week, I presented the Basic Rights for Cable Users brochure (discussion and brochure itself). To recap, the county has been most unhelpful and the committee seems to enjoy flogging themselves over the issue each month. Sure enough, they did it again last night. I guess no one on the committee reads this blog because they all sat there rehashing the same tired logic again and again. (How can we publish it despite the lawyers? Should we change it? And so on.) When someone asked for the nth time why it might cause the county to get sued, Amy made the incredible comment that no one knows because Comcast hasn't seen it yet.

News flash: Of course Comcast has seen the brochure. I guess it's been so long ago that Comcast used to attend the meetings that no one remembers - but Comcast reps sat through many of our discussions on it and received multiple drafts. I personally handed them drafts myself. We wanted input from Comcast. (We never got any but that's a different issue.) One more thing: Comcast officials read this blog - so even if all those earlier Comcast officials are long gone, the new ones know about the brochure anyway.

I'm sorry to say that the committee needs some straightening out and I'm not the one to do it. At the last meeting I raised my hand to make a correction and I was told by the Chair that "in the interest of keeping to the schedule" members of the public would no longer be allowed to voice comments or questions. They would have to wait until the end of the meeting during "Citizen Forum" time.

Huh? That would make sense if someone was raising a new issue but to defer a significant correction or question to later in the meeting? Huh?! Why does the committee want to continue a discussion using incorrect information? Or spend time re-discussing an item that was settled long ago?

This new practice is clearly a change from the past. When I served on the committee, if a member of the public raised their hand, we always recognized them and let them speak. (And there were more public attendees then than now.) If anything, the committee should be even more interested in opinions of the public because they've lost so many of their own voices. Earlier this year, the council changed the size of the committee, lowering it from 19 to 15. And with open seats, scheduling conflicts, and so on, attendance of a dozen is the norm. Is the goal of the committee to be more informed or less?

Rights Gone Wrong

2006-02-27T18:43:00.000-05:00

When I was a member of the county's communications advisory committee (CCAC) two years ago, I drafted a paper titled: Basic Rights for Cable Users in Montgomery County. I was convinced most consumers didn't know what they were entitled to or how to deal with their cable provider. For instance, I was pretty sure that few people understood the multi-stage process in the county for handling cable complaints. (To this day, few residents even know the county has a cable office.)

Shep Bostin (now CCAC chair) made the good suggestion of squeezing the paper down to a single page, folding it up, and distributing it as a brochure. You've seen similar brochures on consumers rights - for health club memberships, home repairs, apartment rentals, and so on. To us, a brochure on cable rights seemed like a pretty reasonable addition to the bunch. We discussed distributing it in libraries and so on. Shep, who works for Geeks on Call, wanted to give them to his own customers. He said that few of his customers know any of this stuff and they would appreciate the information. Shep also came up with the idea of leaving a space for a sponsor on the brochure. For example, he could make copies that said "Distributed courtesy of Geeks On Call" and his company would pick up the cost for making those copies. It would encourage distribution while saving the county's dime. A win-win idea. Everyone on the committee agreed.

Based on our discussion, I created the brochure and tried to jam enough in that it would give people the flavor of what their rights were while not being so mind-numbing as to turn people off. This was around the beginning of 2004. I distributed the draft brochure for several months of CCAC meetings and the committee recommended minor changes - making it even simpler and easier to understand. Cable Administrator Jane Lawton also requested some changes including removal of a few things that seemed to her to be a bit too aggressive. For instance, I had made a recommendation that people avoid using automatic billing. She insisted it be removed. Even though I didn't like doing it, I took it out to keep things moving. (When everyone has compromised, it's probably about right.)

Sometime around April '04, the committee voted to send it to the county attorneys for final review. So where has the brochure gone in the last two years? It's bounced around various county offices. It's regularly appeared on the CCAC agenda - almost all of the members that originally approved it are gone, so new ones passing through have to keep being educated about it. And it again appeared on the agenda two weeks ago when a representative from the Cable Office gave yet another briefing on how the brochure remained mired in our county government. The latest status is that the county lawyers want the committee to drop it. According to the lawyers....

Informing the public is outside the charter of the advisory committee.
The county could be sued for statements in the brochure.

Yes, the county could be sued - after all, anyone can sue anyone - but it's hard to imagine the county losing. Clearly, the lawyers just don't see enough of an upside to take even the slightest risk. (Why stick our necks out for citizens? Our job is to protect the county government!) The CCAC spent yet another 40 minutes of its time during the last meeting discussing this and finally decided that the brochure is too valuable to simply drop and there has to be a way around the lawyers. Indeed, the committee has repeatedly heard encouragement - from the Cable Office, from Councilmember Marilyn Praisner (who is the council lead on all things cable-related). And at the annual meeting with the Council Executive, Bruce Roemer - the County's Chief Administrative Officer - enthusiastically said that informing the public in this manner was a great idea. (Reminder: County Executive Duncan was too busy to attend his own meeting, hence Roemer's presence on Duncan's behalf. However, Duncan wasn't entirely in the dark - he was briefed on it at his annual meeting a year earlier.)

The CCAC has had the brochure on its agenda for so long that it may as well be a permanent item. While I feel some pleasure that the committee still considers my earlier work valuable, I also feel that the time has come to drop it. It's not worth spending yet more time on a project that isn't going anywhere. While there are things worth butting county heads over, the committee could be spending its limited time much more productively. (Note: The CCAC only has a single 3-hour meeting each month.)

So why am I telling this painful tale? While the CCAC may not be able to publish the brochure, there's nothing stopping a public citizen from doing so. Hence, I am taking that step. The brochure is available here and a link to it will appear in the right-hand column of this blog for permanent reference. Download it. Make it available to others. And feel free to put your name or your company's name at the bottom of the first page. Corporate sponsorship is fine with me if it enables more people to be informed about their rights.

PS: I'm not making on money this. Don't call to tell me you're a sponsor - just put your name on the brochure and start copying!

Negotiations Going From None To Worse

2006-02-16T01:06:00.000-05:00

Are my blogs too long? (Some people have said so.) Ok, here's a short one - a few notes from the county advisory (TAC) meeting this past Wednesday.

Negotiations Going From None To Worse

In my MFP meeting summary last week ("How To Communicate Nothing"), I remarked that Verizon VP Briana Gowing was (to put it politely) rambling. At Wednesday evening's TAC meeting, I found out that I wasn't the only one confused by her testimony. Both Cable Office representative Margie Williams and Council Analyst Sonya Healy claimed that Briana had attested to a schedule of meetings planned between the county and Verizon to negotiate the franchise.

You can read the statement in question here. My interpretation was different - that Briana was hoping to set up a series of meetings. But I can see how the phrase "scheduled meetings" might have been misinterpreted to mean meetings having been scheduled. I think it was just an unfortunate choice of words. That combined with her overly optimistic prediction of an agreement by the next MFP meeting surely didn't help.

Anyway, the county representatives were surprised to find the county lawyers denying that any such meeting schedule existed. So, as if communication was bad enough last week, it's even worse this week.

When the TAC pressed over who (the Executive?) or what (Verizon?) was holding things up, Sonya said that things were so far apart that Verizon hadn't even applied for a franchise yet. I found that confusing as they obviously have had some negotations. What is clear is that the Executive has not taken the next step ("filing") which starts a clock requiring certain actions to be taken in specified time periods. This is significant because it means that the Executive presently has no pressure at the current time to take action. He can ignore Verizon from now until the election (which might possibly be his plan).

Meanwhile, Margie observed that the Cable Office was getting lots of letters from citizens frustrated that the franchise wasn't happening. She said that the letters were being forwarded to the Council and the Executive.

Refund

Earlier, I mentioned that Comcast was found to have overcharged Montgomery County customers by $2.50. The Cable Office said the exact amount is actually $2.57. Oddly, you are only eligible if you are a customer as of March 6 of this year. So if you overpaid last year and then left Comcast, you'll miss your refund. Seems kind of strange, no? Ok, I agree that $2.57 is a small amount. But doesn't Comcast keep records of their ex-customers? No wonder they can't figure out why customers have left - out of sight, out of mind.

Internet Customer Service Regulations

At the MFP meeting, Sonya had described how Comcast finally supplied - just that previous evening - their customer service compliance stats for internet service! During the TAC meeting, Margie finally cleared up the mystery of exactly what convinced Comcast to change their mind after a year of procrastination. The county finally threatened to start fining Comcast at $200/day for each day the report was late. With 13 reports late, Comcast would've had to pay $2600 every day!

Rockville Not In Motion

Following up on the letter from a Rockville citizen that I posted previously, I asked Kernan Chaisson what's going on with Rockville. Kernan is the City of Rockville's TAC representative. This isn't the first time I've asked him about the Rockville Right-Of-Way issue and his answer was the same as before - that Rockville is determined to avoid the problems that the rest of the county has experienced with Verizon - and that Rockville lawyers continue to negotiate with Verizon.

JT (author of the letter) received a more detailed answer from Doug Breisch for the City of Rockville. As best I understand it, Verizon declined to sign any of the standard applications that Rockville provides for access to the right-of-way. Instead, Verizon is providing their own proposal - which Rockville is currently analyzing. Rockville did go so far as to say just sign the same franchise that Comcast already holds for a cable franchise and that will suffice. But Verizon was not interested in that offer - presumably for the same reasons that I've outlined earlier regarding the county's offer for a Comcast-like video franchise.

So Verizon doesn't appear to be making things easy for us but at least the Rockville officials are meeting with Verizon. (Remember, the county officials aren't.) Is there anything the County Council can do to break this logjam? Is it time to ask the FCC to threaten us with loss of local control?

Verizon's Fiber to the Rockville Premises

2006-02-15T02:40:00.000-05:00

Will it take individual citizens to move the government to action? If so, let the following letter, quoted in its entirety, be the first of many to come.

I found it posted to a forum at dslreports. The letter was written by a Rockville resident and sent on Feb 13 '06 to Doug Breisch (City of Rockville DTS), County Executive Doug Duncan, the entire Montgomery County council, and the Verizon representative in charge of government affairs.

Subject: Verizon's Fiber to the Premise

To All Whom It May Concern:

In Rockville's April 2005 newsletter, the city indicated that they will not issue the permits necessary for Verizon to upgrade their facilities, because they feel an additional franchise is necessary. However in June, a New York State court ruled that Verizon does not need an additional franchise for this type of upgrade. I realize that Maryland is not bound by the New York decision, but the logic from that decision directly applies to the situation in Rockville. I suspect Verizon could win a lawsuit in Maryland if they chose to fight Rockville's decision, but I doubt they want to incur the legal expenses. As far as I know, no other jurisdiction in the county, the state, or the country, has taken the same stance as the City of Rockville regarding Verizon's upgrade.

Rockville's decision to deny permits affects many people in the county even those who do not reside within the city limits. For example, Randolph Hills is not in the city limits. The Verizon office on Montrose Road, which serves Randolph Hills, is not within the city limits. But since the Montrose Road office also serves areas within city limits, residents of Randolph Hills cannot be upgraded. I do not vote for the officials in the City of Rockville, yet their decision on this matter is preventing me from an upgrade that would reduce my costs several hundred dollars per month.

Nearly a year has passed since Rockville decided to deny permits for Verizon's upgrade, yet no progress has been made to reach an agreement. As far as I know, the county has not taken any steps to intervene.

At a Long Branch Town Hall meeting, I asked Councilmember George Leventhal about progress with television franchise negotiations. He wasn't aware of any. I wrote to my Councilmember, Howard Denis, asking if any progress has been made. He did not reply. I wrote to County Executive Doug Duncan asking who is in charge of negotiations. He did not reply. This issue is too important to be ignored!

This past November, the FCC announced that they are reconsidering the rules governing our communications policy, citing the unreasonableness of some local jurisdictions. Normally, I would be in favor of local control. However, the situation in Rockville provides a perfect argument in favor of removing local control.

The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is here:
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···89A1.doc

Rockville's April 2005 newsletter is here:
»www.rockvillemd.gov/residents/ro···0405.htm

The State of New York's decision is here:
»www3.dps.state.ny.us/pscweb/WebF···nElement

I sincerely hope that all of you will work together so that Verizon's fiber to the premise project can proceed as quickly as possible. If you don't, we can (and should) expect federal intervention, and/or state control.

Regards,
J* T*
{address + phone}

Upcoming Advisory Committee Meeting

2006-02-15T02:13:00.000-05:00

In this blog, I often refer to Montgomery County's "cable advisory committee" - the committee of citizens appointed by the Executive to provide advice to the Executive and the Council. For years the full name was actually Cable Communications Advisory Committee although that was a bit misleading because the CCAC advised on more than cable issues.

Last year, a government report recommended changing the name to reflect its broader scope. No one was particularly happy with this new name but no one on the CCAC or in the Cable Office realized that the Council approved the recommendations wholesale - until it was too late. Thus, CCAC became TAC (Telecommunications Advisory Committee) last month.

The TAC immediately set about trying to change the name back - or at least the acronym. Which is what will happen. The Council will approve a name change to "Cable and Communications Advisory Committee" - note the addition of the "and" which satisfies the desire for a name with a broader scope AND lets the committee continue using the old CCAC acronym.

Your tax dollars at work.

Upcoming Meeting

This Wednesday (Feb 15 '06), there will be a meeting of the CCAC/TAC/CCAC at 7pm. The meeting will be at 100 Maryland Av. 3rd floor (Council Conference Room), Rockville, MD, 20850. (In case you're not clear where Rockville is, look for the only place in the entire county without fiber to any homes.)