how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1010 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| Bill 28-02 update: 0 days to voice your opinion The MC Executive has issued his response to the requirement of 28-02 for cable modem service specifications. We have 30 days to comment. (I'll get an exact date soon.)
Quick background: Bill 28-02, passed in November of last year in Montgomery County MD is of significance nationwide because it sets a precedent. It established the first mechanism where citizens could directly hold cable companies (in MCMD, that mostly means Comcast) accountable for unacceptable internet service. Specifically, 28-02 created a volunteer citizen commission to hear citizen complaints bypassing the franchise mechanism which has no authority over internet service. The new commission has a number of powers including the ability to establish fines of up to $1000 per incident and appoint investigators to cure systemic issues. Despite the predictions of naysayers, Comcast has not successfully challenged the commission or its legal basis. And the commission has made a positive impact already with minimal expense to citizens.
Part of the legislation called for the establishment of definitions of what "cable modem service" is. Last year, actual technical specifications were drafted that included measures of bandwidth, latency, email, etc and county-appointed technical experts said they were reasonable and achievable for a consumer level service.
The MC Executive has chosen not to use these specifications. Instead, the recommendation is to apply the customer service aspects of the cable tv franchise to cable modems. We have 30 days to comment.
There is some good news here and some bad news. The good news is that some of the cable tv franchise requirements easily map to cable modems. For instance, a total loss of cable modem service would (like cable tv service outages) entitle customers to a credit of 10% of the total bill per day. Similarly, companies would now be required to meet other obligations for service response rates, installation requirements, etc.
The bad news is that cable modem service remains totally undefined. So if your email isn't accessible for 24 hours, well, too bad - because Comcast has defined cable modem as being a freebie, not an essential part of cable modem service. Comcast has similarly taken no published stance on bandwidth so if your bandwidth drops to 300 baud, the law would not apply. Nor are there any specifications for how long a period of time an outage has to be. Is two seconds an outage? Two minutes? Twenty minutes? Longer? Shorter?
In my opinion, the new proposal is better than nothing at all. However it is also worse, because 1) it fails to address most of the problems that motivated the creation of the law and 2) it opens a huge door to challenges by cable companies because of the lack of definition in the law over what acceptable cable modem service is. (Needless to say, there's nothing in there about VoIP or other new services, too.) Curiously (it is my understanding that) the executive believes that putting in specifications would open the law to other legal challenges. I'm not aware of what those challenges would be that would be any safer than the challenges over the total lack of specifications.
The Executive has released his recommendation for public comment and it will be accepted or rejected by the Council at the end of the 30 day comment period. I don't have a complete understanding of this process but what I've heard so far is that if the council rejects it, then they will have to pass another bill which could take some time. It's not clear to me if they would have to pass a successor to 28-02 or simply an amendment of some kind, either taking matters on the specs in to their own hands or asking the Executive to try again.
At this time, I haven't decided myself what comments I'll be making on the response. In the meantime, I'll try to find out more answers to the questions I mentioned above.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-01 08:49:21] | |
 JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Re: Bill 28-02 update: 30 days to voice your opinion For reference, here's the most recent (I think) copy of the legislation - Draft 16:
Cable Communications Amendments | |
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to DonLibes
Well, I have one suggestion for Duncan and the council members concerning email:
Let's take their home and work email away from them for 24 hours (or longer), in the middle of the work week; then we can see if they think there should be a requirement on email service. | |
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Mebbe we should head down to the council office building, and yank the plug on their network for a few seconds ever couple of minutes. And near the end of every month, on varying days at our discretion, we could just shut the network down, cuz we feel they've been using it too much. | |
systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace |
This sounds like such good fun that a lottery should be put in place to award the privilege to HSI users, or those who complain to their HSI provider, of the affected systems.  | | |
|
| reply to DonLibes
said by DonLibes:
Comcast has similarly taken no published stance on bandwidth so if your bandwidth drops to 300 baud, the law would not apply.
In their advertising they call their service HSI (High Speed Internet) Service. If the connection is running at less than 56k, it is not HSI. That law may not apply but false advertising sure does.
There needs to be a national action. If Comcast doesn't like what a city or county is doing, they can just stop providing service to that area. I see regulation in the future; just like electricity or telephone service. I caught myself saying, "If HSI were regulated like electricity and telephone, the service would be just as bad", but hey, both of those utilities work great. My electricity goes out maybe once every two years and the phone never goes out.
Another thing Comcast needs is media exposure. A long story about disconnections, slow speed and the inability to diagnose problems, on several of the national TV networks, would definitely get Comcast's attention.
I am going to do my part by sending my comments to CNN and FOX News. Maybe if enough of us contact them, they will do a story.
---
Athlon III | |
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | said by Athlon III:
In their advertising they call their service HSI (High Speed Internet) Service. If the connection is running at less than 56k, it is not HSI. That law may not apply but false advertising sure does.
I don't think you'd be able to build a legal case on that. After all, dialup ISPs don't guarantee rates either. In ye olde days of highspeed dialup, I remember that people would sometimes get 28.8 connections or even less.
There are some aspects of Comcast's advertising that are subject to reasonable misinterpretation but that's pretty much the case for most advertising these days. | |
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | reply to DonLibes
Here is a link to the Executive's proposed regulations:
»www.betterlastmile.org/lib/03092···8-02.doc | |
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:
Well, I have one suggestion for Duncan and the council members concerning email:
Let's take their home and work email away from them for 24 hours (or longer), in the middle of the work week; then we can see if they think there should be a requirement on email service.
That would definitely make news but it's unclear if it would accomplish anything else. For comparison, here's a paragraph from today's Washington Post concerning Isabel/Pepco and the council members: quote:
... The rain falls on the just and the unjust, and, in the case of local government, the powerful and the humble. That, at least, seemed to be the conclusion at a meeting of the Montgomery County Council yesterday afternoon, which sounded like the gripe sessions going on all over the region.
Tom Perez and Nancy Floreen had been without power for five days. A tree fell on Marilyn Praisner's home. George L. Leventhal's basement flooded. Chief Administrative Officer Bruce Romer, the man giving them a briefing on Isabel's aftermath, lost power for three days and had been sleeping in his car.
"People are pretty frustrated," Floreen said, ostensibly to Romer, though there wasn't much he could do about it. "The romance of eating by candlelight wears off after four nights. People's patience is wearing real thin."
Leventhal wanted to know why more trees couldn't be trimmed and why more power lines couldn't be buried -- both expensive propositions. "As each day wears on, people's psychology changes," he said. He was referring to the council's need to build on people's sense of urgency after the Isabel crisis.
He could just as easily have been talking about tens of thousands in the area still sitting with flashlights in darkened homes, with fallen branches all around, watching the dry ice wither away.
| |
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | reply to DonLibes
said by DonLibes:
The MC Executive has issued his response to the requirement of 28-02 for cable modem service specifications. We have 30 days to comment. (I'll get an exact date soon.)
Comments must be received by September 30, 2003. Hmm - that's in 4 days!!!!
Comments should be sent to:
Jane Lawton, Cable Administrator
Department of Technology Services
101 Monroe St., 13th Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20850
or:
Jane.Lawton@MontgomeryCountyMD.gov | |
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to DonLibes
said by DonLibes:
The Executive has released his recommendation for public comment and it will be accepted or rejected by the Council at the end of the 30 day comment period.
Do you know where we can find Duncan's recommendation? | |
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Ooops, nm, I see you provided a link! | |
| reply to Athlon III
I am going to do my part by sending my comments to CNN and FOX News. Maybe if enough of us contact them, they will do a story.
Fox News network has a whats bugging you section and they investigate it we should all say something to them about Comcast and see what they do if anything. | |
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville:
Do you know where we can find Duncan's recommendation?
Ooops, nm, I see you provided a link!
By the way, for people who want to reference the recommendation in their letter, umm, there is no good reference. The site in the link is not an official government site and if you reference that in your letter, it may only provoke confusion and questioning if what you are referencing is what they wrote.
If you are wondering where the recommendation was published, well, it wasn't. According to my contact at the Executive's office, the regulation was sent to the Montgomery County Register, which is a publication that carries only legal notices for the county. They told me it was not online but that I could get a copy at the public library. I called the MC Public Library to see which branches had it. The librarian said, "Don't bother because the regs aren't in the Register; only a notice about the regs is there." The notice says to contact the Cable Office for a copy of the regulations.
So contacting the Cable Office is the official way to get the regulations.
All of this strikes me as very inappropriate - that the notice to the public was given through a publication that the general public doesn't read. (Not to mention that a regulation on internet service was itself not available via the internet.) And I only found out about it when the comment period was already half over, despite sitting on a committee which is supposed to provide advice on these very issues and which had previously sent a letter to the Executive specifically asking to participate in discussions to create the regulations, in part on the basis that our committee was the source of the original specifications.
Disclaimer: This is my own personal opinion and not necessarily that of the committee referenced above. | |
JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| To:
Jane Lawton, Cable Administrator
Department of Technology Services
101 Monroe St., 13th Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Jane.Lawton@MontgomeryCountyMD.gov
Subject: Cable Modem Service Specifications
Dear Ms. Lawton,
I just had the chance to review the Cable Modem Service Standards that were recently issued.
Even though cable video and cable modem services are delivered through the same physical plant, many aspects of the two services have very little in common with each other. For example, the term "service interruption", as defined by our cable TV franchise is "The loss of picture or sound on one or more cable Channels or Channel Equivalents". This covers any situation that would make video service unusable. However, "Service interruption" for cable modem services is defined as "The loss of Cable Modem Service". Even though connectivity is maintained, cable modem service can be rendered unusable if customers experience these situations:
1) A high percentage of data lost (packet-loss),
2) Provider email service not functioning,
3) Provider webspace not functioning,
4) Provider domain name service (DNS) not functioning,
5) Frequent but short disconnections,
6) Essential ports blocked,
7) Usage limits, and
8) Time-outs during communication due to high latency.
Please remember that reliability is an important purpose for these standards, as reflected in the "Frequently Asked Questions" published by our County Council (found at »www.montgomerycountymd.gov/mc/co···e.html):
"Why are cable-modem service requirements so important?
The Internet has become an essential tool in business and in many individual’s lives. Cable modems are by far the most common way of getting high-speed, broadband Internet access. Reliable broadband access will encourage telecommuting to reduce traffic and improve workers’ quality of life. It will help promote education, commerce, and employment. Montgomery County has one of the highest levels of computer use anywhere in the world. As the home of many high-tech employers, such as the National Institutes of Health, a thriving biotech industry, and several key media and communications companies, our community is more dependent than most on the wide availability of reliable broadband Internet access."
I hope you will consider including minimum requirements for cable modem service that are specific enough to ensure that all customers receive a usable level of service.
Thank you,
J* T* | |
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Excellent letter, JT. And on time too! Hey everyone - today is the last day for these letters. | |
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | reply to DonLibes
To: Montgomery County Executive through Jane Lawton, Cable Office
Cc: Montgomery County Council
From: Don Libes
The MC Executive has recently issued proposed regulations as required by recent amendments to Chapter 8A of the County Code due to Bill 28-02. I have several comments on the proposed regulations. Although I sit on the CCAC, I have submitted these comments under my own name because I wanted to go into detail on several areas of the regulations further than the CCAC could given their lack of time for discussion - the CCAC only learned of the regulations when the comment period was already more than half over.
My comments are as follows:
1) The regulations need a clear definition of what is meant by cable modem service.
For example, is electronic mail part of a cable modem service? Comcast's policy is that email is a free extra benefit to customers but is not part of cable modem service in a creditable sense. In other words, loss of email service would not be subject to the rebates presently in the proposed regulation. Such an omission can be read into not just email but virtually any part of cable modem service (webspace, Usenet news, etc). By not spelling out details, the proposed regulations give cable modem providers the freedom to define cable modem service in similarly useless ways.
I believe this lack of detail also provides an obvious rationale for cable providers to successfully challenge this regulation as being vague and therefore unenforceable.
I am particularly concerned that this could be used to overturn this entire section of the County Code.
2) The regulations do not address most of the issues that the council had in mind when it passed 28-02.
All of the drafts of 28-02 contained cable modem performance specifications including areas such as bandwidth, DNS performance, email reliability and others. The final version of 28-02 gave the Executive the responsibility of providing these specifications. The FAQ that can be found on the Council's own web site clearly says how important the specifications are to the community.
The lack of any reference to those specifications or anything remotely like them in the proposed regulation is clearly at odds with the intent of the council and I think it likely on those grounds alone that the regulation will be rejected by the Council forcing them to create new legislation.
3) During discussion at the most recent CCAC meeting (September 17, 2003), Jane Lawton, MC Cable Administrator stated that the proposed regulations avoid the specifications mentioned earlier because of the concern that they would be overturned. However, during the passage of 28-02, the council and their legal telecommunication experts along with statements from FCC staff provided significant evidence that this concern was not significant enough to stop the creation of performance specifications. There have been no statements or actions from the FCC or any court since the passage of 28-02 that would change the council's conclusion.
I believe it is more likely that the regulation in its current form will provide a basis for legal challenges due to its vagueness. At the same CCAC meeting, Ms. Lawton agreed that this is a concern.
4) The customer service standards that appear in the regulations appear to be different than those in the franchise without any apparent rationale.
For example, 4.c.1 "Prompt Service" says: "Repairs and maintenance for Service Interruptions and other repairs not requiring work within a Subscriber's premises must be completed within thirty six (36) hours of the time the Subscriber reports the problem ..." In contrast, the franchise agreement repeats this paragraph but with a requirement of 24 hours. What is the rationale for the 36 figure? Note that Comcast's own advertising suggests that most problems are resolved in the same day. The phrasing in the franchise (including "Under Normal Operating Conditions" and "at least 95% of the time") merely holds cable operators to their own claims. I recommend staying with the 24 figure.
5) Section 4.e.1.A uses phrases like "written description of products ... including ... technical specifications ... including data speed."
This sounds meaningful but can be rendered moot by the inclusion of disclaimers and omissions, similar to those that can be seen in all Comcast literature including their advertisements and Terms Of Service. As an example, Comcast cuts off subscribers who download "too much" data each month. Although some cable providers detail the limit, Comcast has declined to say how much is "too much". This means that subscribers cannot budget their usage. This not only affects subscribers who exceed the limit and get cut off but it affects subscribers who avoid using all of the service they have paid for out of fear of getting cut off. Finally, unstated limits allow the cable operator to be capricious in their application of the limit.
Similar limits are embedded in many places in cable systems, such as the amount of upload, number of outbound emails per minute, size of attachments, number of cc's, etc. I appreciate that some of these limits protect the system as a whole; however the lack of specification of the limits makes legal use of the service into a painful guessing game. For subscribers who don't have knowledge to discover the limits, the result is simply a mysterious and unreliable system, in which subscribers are discouraged from using the resources they have paid for.
All such limits should be clearly stated. While the spirit of section 4.e.1.A agrees with this, the phrasing of it allows the cable operator too much latitude to make this of any value.
6) Section 5 makes reference to remedies that reference the franchise. It is not clear to me that this is even legal. But even if legal, this section describes enforcement in terms of the cable TV franchise, which could detrimentally impact cable TV subscribers. Imagine a violation of these regulations that results in the loss of the cable TV franchise while the violating cable modem service is allowed to continue. In addition, it fails to address the possibility of a cable internet provider who does not have a cable TV franchise. This enforcement is not logical and I am concerned that it might quickly be struck down as conflicting with current FCC regulations.
Chapter 8A that derives from Bill 28-02 provided mechanisms for enforcement. Would it not make sense for these mechanisms be used instead of the new mechanisms expressed in the proposed regulations?
Sincerely,
Don Libes | |
|
