how-to block ads
|
|  
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Broadband Bill of Rights I really hoping Don would beat me to this... cuz I've probably got all the details wrong.
When the bill was passed, there was some controversy about the actual broadband standards. But there's no mention of that on the website where the text of the bill can be found (at least I couldn't find it). I recently asked a councilmember whether or not this was resolved, but haven't heard back yet.
As far as impact, I'd say it's been mixed. Many cases have been settled prior to arbitration. Details are sketchy for these cases, because as far as I know, there aren't any public records of the cases. I guess this is a good outcome, since folks were compensated for their trouble. But the settlements probably don't have enough impact on Comcast's bottom line to prompt any changes in their procedures.
I think there have only been two cases that were actually arbitrated - I'm pulling these out of my memory, so it's possible I don't have it right.. but...
The consumer prevailed vs Comcast in the first, and Comcast prevailed in vs the consumer in the second. I haven't been able to get my hands on the public record of the hearings yet, but I'm sure they'll make an interesting read. | |
| | DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| Re: Broadband Bill of Rights A quick status report:
As JT notes, the commission was established and is active. There is a vacancy if you're interested. 
# of requests for hearing forms: 19
# of requests for hearings denied: 1
# of hearings scheduled: 5
# of hearings cancelled due to settlement: 4
# of hearings held: 1
I must point out that the form itself is most unfriendly and I can see why it might scare off everyone but the most desparate complainants. I'm too tired tonight to go into this in more detail.
The same law that created the commission also contained a requirement that the County Executive draft standards related to customer service and performance. Believe it or not, this is still not complete, hence the commission is, in a sense, making things up as they go along.
So what has the Executive done? The Executive felt that the CCAC's recommended standards (which contained things like statements of caps, reliability metrics, etc) were too likely to be overturned by court challenge and instead, with minor changes, copied the customer service provisions from the existing CATV franchise. This draft was then made available for public comment but in such a way that almost no one knew about it until little time remained so few members of the public commented on it.
However, enough comments were made that it's clear that there are some serious concerns with the recommendation. Based on those comments, the Executive then issued a revised recommendation that was sent to the County Council for approval. This is actually a kind way of looking at it because although I haven't taken the time to compare the versions, the Cable Office assures me that the Executive made no changes (in other words, ignored all public comment) and simply resubmitted the earlier draft.
The relevant subcommittee of the County Council will consider the recommendation on Feb 2 and make a decision whether to recommend it be approved or rejected by the full council, probably some time in March.
Although the draft is weak in its bite, given the lack of any performance standards, it does at least have the good old 10% rebate per day provision for cable modem outages. On the other hand, (as I pointed out in my official public comments) there IS NO DEFINITION of what is a cable modem outage. So I don't see how this thing can hold any water. My prediction is that this whole thing goes up in flames. Alas.
One last thing - I didn't make any comment earlier about the Executive's decision that the performance standards wouldn't stand up to a court challenge. But I don't see why they shouldn't and there is support for my position from what I have read from FCC officials. In any case, I think it appropriate for companies to state their performance minimums. Without it, there's simply no way of judging whether a service you're getting is what you paid for nor can a customer rely on such a service. That said, I do appreciate that the legal issues are, to some degree, subject to FCC whims and could change at any time. Yet I think it is clear that, at least in the area that we live, such legislation is appropriate at this time.
Disclaimer: These are my personal opinions and should not be interpreted to represent the CCAC, the Cable Office, or any other person or group. | |
| | | DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| Re: Broadband Bill of Rights By the way, if you would like to send the County Council your opinion regarding the Executive's recommendation, now is the time to do so.
Unfortunately, it's very unclear as to what the council should do. The possibilities I see are:
1) accept the Executive's recommendation,
2) accept with minor changes,
3) reject and ask him to do it again,
4) reject and kill the whole bill.
Personally, I'd encourage 3 but I doubt the council has the interest to go that direction. I suspect they'll do 4. (Admittedly, I didn't think they'd pass the bill originally so my predictions may not be worth much.)
It's even possible that the Executive may have did what he did in order to encourage 4. Or maybe he just didn't see the point of expending any more energy than necessary. After all, it is possible that the bill will be overturned no matter what the Executive supplied. I don't actually believe that but that's what I've been told the Executive believes. If true, the Executive did the most sensible thing. | |
| | | |
|
