Not Secret, Just Sad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?