Faith-Based Franchise

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 Alas, the briefing packet appears to be an outdated briefing packet for an earlier worksession from a week earlier. I didn't attend the Monday session in person so I was stuck trying to make sense using the out-of-date packet.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

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

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

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

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

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

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.