The Montgomery County Council is holding a Town Hall Meeting this coming Monday evening (Dec 5 '05). If you want to ask questions (for example "What's the holdup with the Verizon TV Franchise?") or make statements ("We need competition, please find out what's holding up the Verizon TV Franchise."), this would be a splendid opportunity since the entire council will be present. The meeting will also be broadcast on County Cable Montgomery channel 6.
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/2005NEWS/th-longbranch1.pdf
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Oct 24 '05 MFP Review - The Replacements
Both the usual and the usual happened at the October 24 '05 quarterly review of Montgomery County's franchisee performance.
The Replacements
First, the usual.
Comcast noted that the General Manager role was temporarily being filled by Jaye Gamble, a regional director at Comcast. Jay didn't show up for the meeting. Representing Comcast was Angela Lee, also a regional officer, so she's Acting as well. RCN sent Richard Wadman. And Verizon weighed in with a replacement as well: Brianna Gowen. Previous Director of the FIOS project, Donald Heath, resigned. Sigh.
Finally, MC Cable Administrator Jane Lawton is likely to be stepping down from her position as MC Cable Administrator. This is pending confirmation by Governor Erlich to a Maryland Delegate seat. Although a delegate seat is only a 3-month/year occupation, according to the Cable Office, a legislator cannot also hold a regulatory position. In the future, I hope to give Jane a proper sendoff with a blog entry covering just her - she has after all served in this position for 10 years and through tumultuous times - but I'll hold off until she's confirmed.
Posturing
And now the usual.
The county noted that Comcast was again over the permitted levels of violations in several areas. Furthermore, Comcast had failed to turn in the required reports on time for 4 of the last 5 months. Comcast was also taking too long to fix safety-related issues. The county was prepared to issue a fine, using the "liquidated damages" section of the franchise.
RCN, by comparison, was doing much better; however, Cable Administrator Lawton noted that she was having problems getting her phone calls returned since the company's liaison had gone on maternity leave. This seemed to be a total surprise to the RCN rep in attendence. How can stuff like this happen?
For Verizon, it was good news / bad news. The good news was that complaints were down significantly. (However, that didn't stop Comcast from returning to the all our troubles are due to Verizon theme.) The bad news is that nobody was able to say anything positive about the proposed Verizon TV franchise. Actually, Verizon vaguely said it was going well. But the Cable Office said Verizon had not responded to their most recent proposal. And the Council couldn't understand why it was totally out of the loop. Summary: Not good. If the franchise is signed by April, I'd be surprised.
In other words, the phrase of the day was continued posturing. Does anything ever change? The council members raised the same questions as they always do. For example:
Wrap Up
The council finished up the day with some more empty threats about how mad they were - both at the franchisees and at the county executive. The council has the power to make things happen but all I see at present are empty words.
Lastly, you can view some the council's prep material here. The council complained (for the nth time) about the Cable Office turning its report in late so that it could not be included in the Council's prep material. Same for Verizon. (Comcast and RCN don't even turn anything in, sigh.)
The Replacements
First, the usual.
Comcast noted that the General Manager role was temporarily being filled by Jaye Gamble, a regional director at Comcast. Jay didn't show up for the meeting. Representing Comcast was Angela Lee, also a regional officer, so she's Acting as well. RCN sent Richard Wadman. And Verizon weighed in with a replacement as well: Brianna Gowen. Previous Director of the FIOS project, Donald Heath, resigned. Sigh.
Finally, MC Cable Administrator Jane Lawton is likely to be stepping down from her position as MC Cable Administrator. This is pending confirmation by Governor Erlich to a Maryland Delegate seat. Although a delegate seat is only a 3-month/year occupation, according to the Cable Office, a legislator cannot also hold a regulatory position. In the future, I hope to give Jane a proper sendoff with a blog entry covering just her - she has after all served in this position for 10 years and through tumultuous times - but I'll hold off until she's confirmed.
Posturing
And now the usual.
The county noted that Comcast was again over the permitted levels of violations in several areas. Furthermore, Comcast had failed to turn in the required reports on time for 4 of the last 5 months. Comcast was also taking too long to fix safety-related issues. The county was prepared to issue a fine, using the "liquidated damages" section of the franchise.
RCN, by comparison, was doing much better; however, Cable Administrator Lawton noted that she was having problems getting her phone calls returned since the company's liaison had gone on maternity leave. This seemed to be a total surprise to the RCN rep in attendence. How can stuff like this happen?
For Verizon, it was good news / bad news. The good news was that complaints were down significantly. (However, that didn't stop Comcast from returning to the all our troubles are due to Verizon theme.) The bad news is that nobody was able to say anything positive about the proposed Verizon TV franchise. Actually, Verizon vaguely said it was going well. But the Cable Office said Verizon had not responded to their most recent proposal. And the Council couldn't understand why it was totally out of the loop. Summary: Not good. If the franchise is signed by April, I'd be surprised.
In other words, the phrase of the day was continued posturing. Does anything ever change? The council members raised the same questions as they always do. For example:
- Why does Comcast insist their internet reports (required by county code) are impossible to provide?
- Why does Comcast advertise for new customers when they can't appear to handle their existing customers?
- Why does Comcast tell us things that aren't true - such as school connections being completed when they haven't been?
- Why does Verizon shower us with statistics that seem to be, oh shall we say, meaningless?
Wrap Up
The council finished up the day with some more empty threats about how mad they were - both at the franchisees and at the county executive. The council has the power to make things happen but all I see at present are empty words.
Lastly, you can view some the council's prep material here. The council complained (for the nth time) about the Cable Office turning its report in late so that it could not be included in the Council's prep material. Same for Verizon. (Comcast and RCN don't even turn anything in, sigh.)
Monday, October 24, 2005
Comcast Privacy Practices
Normally, I don't spend time commenting on national news - plenty of other people do that already - and just keeping up with the local events takes all the time I can afford to give. However, this news is close enough to home that I feel obliged to comment on it.
Recently, a town councilmember in Smyrna, Delaware tried to find out the identity of a blogger. The blogger had accused the councilmember of "obvious mental deterioration" and made a pun on his name suggesting he was gay.
ISPs generally will not turn over subscriber information except when required by court order. And such a court order was made - to Comcast. However, the case was appealed and ultimately worked its way to the Delaware Supreme Court. That court ruled that the anonymous blogging was akin to anonymous political pamphleteering, a subject that the US Supreme Court has ruled on.
Specifically, the statements were found to be opinion; Chief Justice Myron Steele wrote: ... no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. ... The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning.
Bottom line: Comcast was not forced to expose the blogger's identity.
Good job Comcast!
Or is it? What about Comcast's other privacy practices? Probably few people read Comcast's subscriber privacy policy. It's difficult to understand, boring as hell, and well, what's the big deal? Didn't Comcast just show that it protected a subscriber's identity?
Yes, but Comcast's privacy policy nonetheless raises significant concerns. You might even call them holes. Giant gaping holes.
Comcast actually has several privacy policies. For instance, it's got http://www.comcast.net/privacy for internet service. And it's got another for TV service. And another for phone service. And yet another for their website.
Each of them explains that simply by using the service, you accept their privacy policy - whether or not you have read it. Or agree with it.
Let's delve into their internet privacy policy for a moment. Their policy mentions a dispute resolution process and alludes to compliance with TRUSTe, but a closer read finds many exclusions. In short, if you disagree with Comcast's privacy policy, your only recourse is to avoid using their service.
Examples
What are some examples of the holes in Comcast's Internet Privacy Policy?
And this: We sometimes disclose personally identifiable information about you to our affiliates but with no explanation of what "affiliates" are.
And this: We sometimes also disclose personally identifiable information about you to our employees for Comcast's internal business purposes, as well as to outside auditors, professional advisors and service providers, potential business transition partners, and regulators. ... We may also disclose certain personally identifiable information about you to third parties such as, for example, charities, marketing organizations, or other businesses, in connection with disclosures made for "mailing list" or other purposes as described below in this Policy.
And not only can personally identifiable information include your name, address, cable plan, and usage, but also your internal computer settings, cookies, preferences, and so on.
Finally - not that it matters by now - Comcast reserves the right to change their policy at any time and without notification: If we change this Policy, we will post those changes on the homepage of the Service Web site, or in other places we deem appropriate, so our subscribers are aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. We will use information in accordance with the Privacy Policy under which the information was collected. Your decision to continue receiving the Service after we make any changes to this Policy shall be deemed to be your express consent to the changes in the revised Policy.
Cable Office Weighs In
The Montgomery County Cable Office is also upset about Comcast's Privacy Policy. However they only have authority over the Cable TV Privacy Policy. Their TV policy has some differences from their internet policy. And it is further governed by the 1984 Cable Privacy Act. However their TV policy also has distressing similarities. Yes, there are enough loopholes in it that Comcast could be said to be adhering to the letter of the law if not the spirit of it.
However one clear violation is as follows: The Comcast franchise (see section 9.f.4) with Montgomery County requires all information distributed to customers - including the privacy policy - to be approved by the Cable Office. And Comcast has not done that. Instead, Comcast has claimed that they now have a national policy and do not have the flexibility to have a local policy that would be different.
As I understand it then, Comcast is in violation of the franchise and the County has not seen fit to live up to its responsibility and take action. Yes, they have notified Comcast but basically Comcast has ignored them. I have no inside knowledge of these interactions but I can only presume that the Cable Administrator has informed the Executive and the Executive has declined to take further action.
This is a mistake. Protection from abuse by our franchisees is one of the reason we pay our franchise fees - that's 5% on top of the bill that goes directly to the county. In addition, disinterest in enforcing parts of the franchise opens the door for Comcast to ignore other parts with similar reasoning.
Conclusion
So there you have it. Comcast gets headlines for protecting subscriber privacy with one hand while at the same time, well, not protecting subscribe privacy with the other hand. Don't like the policy? Too bad. By using the service, you have already accepted it.
Recently, a town councilmember in Smyrna, Delaware tried to find out the identity of a blogger. The blogger had accused the councilmember of "obvious mental deterioration" and made a pun on his name suggesting he was gay.
ISPs generally will not turn over subscriber information except when required by court order. And such a court order was made - to Comcast. However, the case was appealed and ultimately worked its way to the Delaware Supreme Court. That court ruled that the anonymous blogging was akin to anonymous political pamphleteering, a subject that the US Supreme Court has ruled on.
Specifically, the statements were found to be opinion; Chief Justice Myron Steele wrote: ... no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. ... The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning.
Bottom line: Comcast was not forced to expose the blogger's identity.
Good job Comcast!
Or is it? What about Comcast's other privacy practices? Probably few people read Comcast's subscriber privacy policy. It's difficult to understand, boring as hell, and well, what's the big deal? Didn't Comcast just show that it protected a subscriber's identity?
Yes, but Comcast's privacy policy nonetheless raises significant concerns. You might even call them holes. Giant gaping holes.
Comcast actually has several privacy policies. For instance, it's got http://www.comcast.net/privacy for internet service. And it's got another for TV service. And another for phone service. And yet another for their website.
Each of them explains that simply by using the service, you accept their privacy policy - whether or not you have read it. Or agree with it.
Let's delve into their internet privacy policy for a moment. Their policy mentions a dispute resolution process and alludes to compliance with TRUSTe, but a closer read finds many exclusions. In short, if you disagree with Comcast's privacy policy, your only recourse is to avoid using their service.
Examples
What are some examples of the holes in Comcast's Internet Privacy Policy?
- "Co-branded" Services. Services operated by other companies but with Comcast's name are not covered by the privacy policy. If you enter data about yourself, the company is free to do what it wants with it. This includes services such as newsgroups, video mail, instant messaging, and web hosting. Oh and let's not forget support. Since half of Comcast's support is carried out by contractors, anyone who calls in a few times is highly likely to have exposed their personal information to the privacy policies of other companies; policies that you have not read or have any idea about.
- Marketing. Although Comcast's privacy policy says it is "committed to maintaining your privacy" there are too many holes in the words surrounding that phrase. For example, consider this: Comcast may combine personally identifiable information, which we collect as part of our regular business records, with personally identifiable information obtained from third parties for the purpose of creating an enhanced personal database to use in marketing and other activities related to the Service and our other services.
And this: We sometimes disclose personally identifiable information about you to our affiliates but with no explanation of what "affiliates" are.
And this: We sometimes also disclose personally identifiable information about you to our employees for Comcast's internal business purposes, as well as to outside auditors, professional advisors and service providers, potential business transition partners, and regulators. ... We may also disclose certain personally identifiable information about you to third parties such as, for example, charities, marketing organizations, or other businesses, in connection with disclosures made for "mailing list" or other purposes as described below in this Policy.
And not only can personally identifiable information include your name, address, cable plan, and usage, but also your internal computer settings, cookies, preferences, and so on.
Finally - not that it matters by now - Comcast reserves the right to change their policy at any time and without notification: If we change this Policy, we will post those changes on the homepage of the Service Web site, or in other places we deem appropriate, so our subscribers are aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. We will use information in accordance with the Privacy Policy under which the information was collected. Your decision to continue receiving the Service after we make any changes to this Policy shall be deemed to be your express consent to the changes in the revised Policy.
Cable Office Weighs In
The Montgomery County Cable Office is also upset about Comcast's Privacy Policy. However they only have authority over the Cable TV Privacy Policy. Their TV policy has some differences from their internet policy. And it is further governed by the 1984 Cable Privacy Act. However their TV policy also has distressing similarities. Yes, there are enough loopholes in it that Comcast could be said to be adhering to the letter of the law if not the spirit of it.
However one clear violation is as follows: The Comcast franchise (see section 9.f.4) with Montgomery County requires all information distributed to customers - including the privacy policy - to be approved by the Cable Office. And Comcast has not done that. Instead, Comcast has claimed that they now have a national policy and do not have the flexibility to have a local policy that would be different.
As I understand it then, Comcast is in violation of the franchise and the County has not seen fit to live up to its responsibility and take action. Yes, they have notified Comcast but basically Comcast has ignored them. I have no inside knowledge of these interactions but I can only presume that the Cable Administrator has informed the Executive and the Executive has declined to take further action.
This is a mistake. Protection from abuse by our franchisees is one of the reason we pay our franchise fees - that's 5% on top of the bill that goes directly to the county. In addition, disinterest in enforcing parts of the franchise opens the door for Comcast to ignore other parts with similar reasoning.
Conclusion
So there you have it. Comcast gets headlines for protecting subscriber privacy with one hand while at the same time, well, not protecting subscribe privacy with the other hand. Don't like the policy? Too bad. By using the service, you have already accepted it.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Open Mike, Close Ears
In a recent letter to constituents, Montgomery County Councilmember Mike Knapp, rehashes the Verizon FIOS installation saga. Cleverly called "Open Mike", the letter is just a little too open in my opinion - lacking any references or statistics for his assertions. I don't like it.
For example, he says "Frankly, I'm not sure a day still passes where we don’t get one, sometimes many complaints." He's not sure? Huh? Then why say it? How many complaints is his office really getting? Why is his communique free of any actual numbers?
Another example of Mike's pearls: "And now, last evening, I was notified that more than a thousand Germantown residents had lost their cable because Verizon’s subcontractor and cut through their cable lines." Notified by whom? The letter says it was delivered to the council Sept 20 but I've seen no complaints on broadbandreports (where such outages are commonly reported) that would serve to back up his assertion. Could everyone in the Germantown area who reads this and lost connectivity then, email me? Or even one? Details (specifically time, duration, and location), please.
Knapp goes on to make other assertions, such as this one about driveways being "torn apart" saying "If the driveway is fixed, it is often fixed poorly." Torn apart? Fixed poorly? Often? Where are the numbers to back these assertions up? Photos?
Knapp continues that he "read in the newspaper that Verizon was still rather lamely asserting that the problem didn’t really lie with them, but rather with allegedly mislabeled utility lines. According to Verizon, it was someone else’s fault." Councilmember, what newspaper did you read that in? None of those which I read characterized it as "lamely" or anything close to it.
Wait, it just occurred to me what's going on. Knapp missed the previous council meeting at which Comcast made the same assertion only to have it blow up in their face. And none of his staffers briefed him on the outcome. Councilmember Knapp - please get up to speed. Review the notes from the meeting. Or read some blogs. Yes, Verizon is causing problems for Comcast. But your hyperbole isn't helping. The reality is that Comcast shares a large part of the blame. Verizon isn't saying they're blame-free. When you claim that they are, it makes you look uninformed and unhelpful - as if you cannot even understand the paper that you claim to read and cite. And cannot understand the council meeting notes that you haven't taken the time to carefully review.
Upcoming Quarterly Review of Comcast, RCN/Starpower, and Verizon
The Montgomery County Council's MFP Committee reviews the performance of its franchisees Comcast and RCN (nee Starpower) every three months. It's that time again. And Verizon is getting to be a regular invitee as well. Join me in person or watch using the county's video streaming or archive service. Of course, cable customers can also watch it live on TV. (Does anyone do this?) I plan to attend in person. The handouts are just too good to miss - and due to the poor quality of the video feeds, you can't read the viewgraphs except in person. Best of all, I can't wait to see which new sacrificial lamb Comcast sends this time.
For example, he says "Frankly, I'm not sure a day still passes where we don’t get one, sometimes many complaints." He's not sure? Huh? Then why say it? How many complaints is his office really getting? Why is his communique free of any actual numbers?
Another example of Mike's pearls: "And now, last evening, I was notified that more than a thousand Germantown residents had lost their cable because Verizon’s subcontractor and cut through their cable lines." Notified by whom? The letter says it was delivered to the council Sept 20 but I've seen no complaints on broadbandreports (where such outages are commonly reported) that would serve to back up his assertion. Could everyone in the Germantown area who reads this and lost connectivity then, email me? Or even one? Details (specifically time, duration, and location), please.
Knapp goes on to make other assertions, such as this one about driveways being "torn apart" saying "If the driveway is fixed, it is often fixed poorly." Torn apart? Fixed poorly? Often? Where are the numbers to back these assertions up? Photos?
Knapp continues that he "read in the newspaper that Verizon was still rather lamely asserting that the problem didn’t really lie with them, but rather with allegedly mislabeled utility lines. According to Verizon, it was someone else’s fault." Councilmember, what newspaper did you read that in? None of those which I read characterized it as "lamely" or anything close to it.
Wait, it just occurred to me what's going on. Knapp missed the previous council meeting at which Comcast made the same assertion only to have it blow up in their face. And none of his staffers briefed him on the outcome. Councilmember Knapp - please get up to speed. Review the notes from the meeting. Or read some blogs. Yes, Verizon is causing problems for Comcast. But your hyperbole isn't helping. The reality is that Comcast shares a large part of the blame. Verizon isn't saying they're blame-free. When you claim that they are, it makes you look uninformed and unhelpful - as if you cannot even understand the paper that you claim to read and cite. And cannot understand the council meeting notes that you haven't taken the time to carefully review.
Upcoming Quarterly Review of Comcast, RCN/Starpower, and Verizon
The Montgomery County Council's MFP Committee reviews the performance of its franchisees Comcast and RCN (nee Starpower) every three months. It's that time again. And Verizon is getting to be a regular invitee as well. Join me in person or watch using the county's video streaming or archive service. Of course, cable customers can also watch it live on TV. (Does anyone do this?) I plan to attend in person. The handouts are just too good to miss - and due to the poor quality of the video feeds, you can't read the viewgraphs except in person. Best of all, I can't wait to see which new sacrificial lamb Comcast sends this time.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Stop-Work Orders
In the Sept 21 '05 issue of the MC Gazette there is a brief article covering a County Council session in which Verizon was discussed. Specifically, the council debated whether they could issue stop-work orders on permits that they had previously approved for Verizon, due to the continuing complaints from citizens about damage caused by Verizon's fiber installers.
Oddly, the council session is not listed in their published agenda so I heard nothing about it until this article appeared. Even now, no such meeting is listed at the county website. I'm going to inquire about this oversight.
According to the Gazette, the debate arose during a discussion of Verizon's application for a cable franchise. What is interesting is that a cable franchise would normally include negotiation for access to the rights-of-way. But in this case, Verizon already has such access (except within Rockville, sigh) as it was granted for their internet and phone service. So the County has lost a bit of leverage when it comes to negotiating the franchise. Is the combination of citizen complaints and gaining leverage back that much incentive to stop Verizon from continuing its FIOS installation?
More importantly, do Verizon's negatives outweigh Verizon's positive for the county? Although I'm not about to suggest we hand over the keys to the, ... um, county, there's no doubt that the council is going to give Verizon a franchise. It's inevitable. The county needs the competition. Desperately. Even now, with Verizon starting to erode Comcast's huge head start of internet subscribers, Comcast continues to rack up the complaints. I just don't see how Verizon could do worse.
Among comments of unhappiness from various councilmembers, the Gazette quoted Councilmember Subin saying "I'm not prepared to vote in favor of a franchise agreement that got that with practices that are questionable." Oh really. Where was all this questioning when Comcast's franchise agreement was signed. Comcast's history was just as bad if not worse - and the council eagerly signed. And signed again during the renegotiation two ago, giving up another opportunity to jettison the company. Well, if Verizon has any memory (and they must as the director of the FIOS project, Donald Heath, attended Comcast's franchise hearings), they must realize that the council is merely posturing for the cameras. Comcast's in this case.
Oddly, the council session is not listed in their published agenda so I heard nothing about it until this article appeared. Even now, no such meeting is listed at the county website. I'm going to inquire about this oversight.
According to the Gazette, the debate arose during a discussion of Verizon's application for a cable franchise. What is interesting is that a cable franchise would normally include negotiation for access to the rights-of-way. But in this case, Verizon already has such access (except within Rockville, sigh) as it was granted for their internet and phone service. So the County has lost a bit of leverage when it comes to negotiating the franchise. Is the combination of citizen complaints and gaining leverage back that much incentive to stop Verizon from continuing its FIOS installation?
More importantly, do Verizon's negatives outweigh Verizon's positive for the county? Although I'm not about to suggest we hand over the keys to the, ... um, county, there's no doubt that the council is going to give Verizon a franchise. It's inevitable. The county needs the competition. Desperately. Even now, with Verizon starting to erode Comcast's huge head start of internet subscribers, Comcast continues to rack up the complaints. I just don't see how Verizon could do worse.
Among comments of unhappiness from various councilmembers, the Gazette quoted Councilmember Subin saying "I'm not prepared to vote in favor of a franchise agreement that got that with practices that are questionable." Oh really. Where was all this questioning when Comcast's franchise agreement was signed. Comcast's history was just as bad if not worse - and the council eagerly signed. And signed again during the renegotiation two ago, giving up another opportunity to jettison the company. Well, if Verizon has any memory (and they must as the director of the FIOS project, Donald Heath, attended Comcast's franchise hearings), they must realize that the council is merely posturing for the cameras. Comcast's in this case.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Comcast General Manager Resigns
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.
Comcast has never released the number of cable modem subscribers in Montgomery County but I've regularly heard estimates of 100,000+ along with estimates of 220,000 TV customers. Now that competition is increasingly available from Verizon, and with lower rates at that, one can only imagine the number of customers fleeing the sinking ship. Indeed, all of my co-workers who have been offered Verizon FIOS have taken it and dumped Comcast HSI. Reports of FIOS performance and price have been enthusiastic. Here's an example from Walt Mossberg who lives in Montgomery County and writes the Personal Technology column for the Wall Street Journal.
In the past, customers have had little choice for residential broadband (small percentages of the county received DSL and/or StarPower). In a sense, Comcast was a de facto monopoly. There are fewer monopoly issues with TV reception as most citizens can get similar service from satellite providers. However, certain shows can only be found on local cable providers, such as the PEG channels and certain sporting events to which Comcast owned the rights. However, Verizon is in negotiation with the county for a cable franchise (yes, even though they use fiber, it's still called a "cable franchise") and when that is available, we can expect the other shoe to drop. Many customers will see no reason to put up with further shoddy service at a higher cost.
I'm sure that General Manager and VP Craig Snedeker could read the future pretty easily. Without any expectations that customers will get better service, why would they stay? Better to leave now than with the horrible blot on his record of presiding over a company boasting fabulous technology but losing customers and revenue.
And Snedeker is not the only one to depart. As I've covered earlier, other high-level Comcast of MC executives have also fled the company, most recently Snedeker's point man, Melody Khalatburi, who was elevated to senior whipping boy for the County Council during its most recently quarterly review of the franchise when neither Snedeker nor Ellen Bogage showed up - this at a meeting in which Comcast asserted that Verizon was the real culprit in Comcast's horrible complaint statistics.
A reader of this blog asked me if I knew where Snedeker has jumped off to. I do not know. I've never even met the man. Although I'm on speaking terms (or at least was until they all up and quit) with many Comcast execs, I don't recall Snedeker coming to any of the hearings or meetings that I attended. That in itself is probably a good reflection of his focus ... or lack thereof. So Comcast is searching for a new general manager for Montgomery County. I wish them luck. As Councilmember Praisner was quoted by the Gazette, "I hope that anyone they hire understands importance of customer service in Montgomery."
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.
Comcast has never released the number of cable modem subscribers in Montgomery County but I've regularly heard estimates of 100,000+ along with estimates of 220,000 TV customers. Now that competition is increasingly available from Verizon, and with lower rates at that, one can only imagine the number of customers fleeing the sinking ship. Indeed, all of my co-workers who have been offered Verizon FIOS have taken it and dumped Comcast HSI. Reports of FIOS performance and price have been enthusiastic. Here's an example from Walt Mossberg who lives in Montgomery County and writes the Personal Technology column for the Wall Street Journal.
In the past, customers have had little choice for residential broadband (small percentages of the county received DSL and/or StarPower). In a sense, Comcast was a de facto monopoly. There are fewer monopoly issues with TV reception as most citizens can get similar service from satellite providers. However, certain shows can only be found on local cable providers, such as the PEG channels and certain sporting events to which Comcast owned the rights. However, Verizon is in negotiation with the county for a cable franchise (yes, even though they use fiber, it's still called a "cable franchise") and when that is available, we can expect the other shoe to drop. Many customers will see no reason to put up with further shoddy service at a higher cost.
I'm sure that General Manager and VP Craig Snedeker could read the future pretty easily. Without any expectations that customers will get better service, why would they stay? Better to leave now than with the horrible blot on his record of presiding over a company boasting fabulous technology but losing customers and revenue.
And Snedeker is not the only one to depart. As I've covered earlier, other high-level Comcast of MC executives have also fled the company, most recently Snedeker's point man, Melody Khalatburi, who was elevated to senior whipping boy for the County Council during its most recently quarterly review of the franchise when neither Snedeker nor Ellen Bogage showed up - this at a meeting in which Comcast asserted that Verizon was the real culprit in Comcast's horrible complaint statistics.
A reader of this blog asked me if I knew where Snedeker has jumped off to. I do not know. I've never even met the man. Although I'm on speaking terms (or at least was until they all up and quit) with many Comcast execs, I don't recall Snedeker coming to any of the hearings or meetings that I attended. That in itself is probably a good reflection of his focus ... or lack thereof. So Comcast is searching for a new general manager for Montgomery County. I wish them luck. As Councilmember Praisner was quoted by the Gazette, "I hope that anyone they hire understands importance of customer service in Montgomery."
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Bogage is Back
Ellen Bogage, erstwhile Director of Government and Community Affairs for Comcast of Montgomery County was saluted in this week's MC Gazette.
The big news? Bogage has become chair of the Committee for Montgomery. According to the article, the CfM is a coalition of county leaders from business, labor, education, civic and community organizations. One such member: Comcast.
What I found more interesting from reading the article - Ellen has formed her own consulting business. The only reported client: Comcast.
Could the Committee of Montgomery simply be a strategy to overpower the voice of citizens at county hearings? By organizing businesses and non-business associations, that would make a very powerful voice - even more powerful than the MC Chamber of Commerce (on which Ellen serves as Vice-Chair of Legislative Affairs) or the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce which had officers testify at Comcast hearings with pro-Comcast opinions while not revealing their affiliations with Comcast. As a visit to their website will reveal, Comcast is a major sponsor of the BCCCC.
As CfM Chair, Bogage is quoted saying that "We don't take a public position on an issue unless 85 percent of board members agree." That's a very high percentage, yes, but on the other hand, it leaves enough wiggle room that voices representing non-business concerns could be edged out. But that may not even be an issue since only the board participates in votes, not the full committee. It will be interesting to see the board - should it ever be made public (Google reports no website at this time) - and what percentage is incestuously related by Comcast business concerns.
The big news? Bogage has become chair of the Committee for Montgomery. According to the article, the CfM is a coalition of county leaders from business, labor, education, civic and community organizations. One such member: Comcast.
What I found more interesting from reading the article - Ellen has formed her own consulting business. The only reported client: Comcast.
Could the Committee of Montgomery simply be a strategy to overpower the voice of citizens at county hearings? By organizing businesses and non-business associations, that would make a very powerful voice - even more powerful than the MC Chamber of Commerce (on which Ellen serves as Vice-Chair of Legislative Affairs) or the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce which had officers testify at Comcast hearings with pro-Comcast opinions while not revealing their affiliations with Comcast. As a visit to their website will reveal, Comcast is a major sponsor of the BCCCC.
As CfM Chair, Bogage is quoted saying that "We don't take a public position on an issue unless 85 percent of board members agree." That's a very high percentage, yes, but on the other hand, it leaves enough wiggle room that voices representing non-business concerns could be edged out. But that may not even be an issue since only the board participates in votes, not the full committee. It will be interesting to see the board - should it ever be made public (Google reports no website at this time) - and what percentage is incestuously related by Comcast business concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)