Broadband Bill of Rights:Maryland guidelines lose some teeth ( old news - 10:58AM Monday Sep 22 2003) tags: business · cable · legislationTipped by Karl Bode  Legislation in Montgomery County, Maryland continues to blaze a trail, allowing the community the rare privilege of being able to hold area cable franchises accountable for poor service. - If you're looking for a reason why large providers are hoping to eliminate regulatory oversight from the state and local level, you need look no further than Montgomery County. Area residents complained loudly and constantly to county lawmakers about the poor service they had been receiving from their cable provider. Legislators in the area decided to forge regional guidelines for acceptable cable broadband service (you can find discussion threads here and here), something that was previously unheard of. What essentially amounts to a "broadband bill of rights" continues to have its wording tinkered with until everyone is satisfied. While the laws are currently in effect, the latest draft (available here in pdf format) is still being heavily disputed. The guidelines originally made some impressive demands, such as forcing Comcast to provide "1 megabits per second in download bandwidth for at least 18 hours", and "mail servers that can actively accept inbound e-mail messages 95% of one full week". Apparently however the guidelines have met some setbacks, with the original performance criteria being replaced with somewhat more lenient measures. Now it seems that the same performance criteria used for standard cable service will now be applied to internet service as well. Customers would still see credits to the tune of 10% of the total bill per day for outages, but the original cable-modem specific guidelines have been pulled from the measure entirely. Fortunately the original idea to create a volunteer citizen commission to hear citizen complaints remains intact (the commission can levy fines of up to $1,000 per offense). However the lack of specific cable broadband network performance criteria has kept the idea from its full potential. According to this post in our Comcast cable forum, the Maryland County Executive has opened a 30 day comment window, allowing area residents to voice their opinions on the latest guidelines.
Related:- Friday Evening Links
- Bright House Slams Verizon On FiOS Grounding
- House Passes Bill Delaying DTV Transition
- Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality
- Real Consumer Group Takes Aim At Fake Ones
- Pittsburgh City Council Approves FiOS Franchise
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- Cable Industry: Shucks, Guess Nobody Wants CableCARDs
|
 
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs: | Sad It's pretty sad that their service is so poor there that is has to come with this, but it's good to see something done. The internet is rapidly changing from a luxury to a necessity. | |
|  | 
DrRich
@eds.net | Re: Sad Its pretty sad when you can refer to the tech support as 5.00/hr tech support also. | |
| RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| No wonder... Providing at least 1 megabit/sec download for 18 of 24 hours and email uptime of 95% isn't much of a target, is it? I'd be hopping mad if mine was that bad. If the cable system can't even hit those low marks it must be truly horrible. By comparison, my 1536/288 DSL connection has maybe a total of six hours downtime per year, including scheduled maintenance, bitrates are rock-solid and as-advertised, and email is rarely out for more than 15-20 minutes a month if that.
"...but the original cable-modem specific guidelines have been pulled from the measure entirely."
I wonder how much longer before the CATV provisions fall, too, or that the term "outage" is redefined? | |
| | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: No wonder... That's just it. Mine is residential ADSL (and via SBC of all companies) and I would be screaming if I had to put up with a 25% connectivity downtime average and email outages of over an hour a day. Comcast's service in that area must set new standards for "horrid".
Good luck to you all. | |
| | bobbinbob
join:2002-02-21
USA
| Amazing how spoiled we have become compared to just a year or two ago. Now 1mb download speed is considered crappy ?!?!
How many of you realize that you were paying $20 per month for a barely working, flakey 28.8k dialup account and now for $50 or less you get a mostly on 1mb+ connection.
And you complain about paying $50, yet if it doesn't work you can't live without it. If Internet access was as life sustaining as people make it out to be, then I would think you would be willing to pay $100+ for the service if it was good quality.
I do a fair amount of downloading and a I am an avid online gamer (first person shooter). I have never had a need for more than 512k of consistent, low latency bandwidth. | |
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
| Re: No wonder... No, 1 megabit isn't crappy. Hitting that target only 75% of the time being acceptable is crappy.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-22 13:18:15] | |
| | | fuzydice
join:2000-12-18
Sunnyvale, CA
| said by bobbinbob :
How many of you realize that you were paying $20 per month for a barely working, flakey 28.8k dialup account and now for $50 or less you get a mostly on 1mb+ connection.
And you complain about paying $50, yet if it doesn't work you can't live without it. If Internet access was as life sustaining as people make it out to be, then I would think you would be willing to pay $100+ for the service if it was good quality.
i paid for dialup when it was the only option, prior to the dsl/cable/broadband boom of the late 90's. When broadband became available, dialup suddenly wasn't worth $0.01 to me, and when my cable stops working (cuz Comcast sucks) i use netzero and pay nothing for it. Things change. When/if an alternative comes along that's 5mbit/512 for $65/mo, I wont value cable as much. Perhaps its not that i wont value it, but i wont want it because there's better deals in town. Capitalism at its best right? Dialup is more reliable now than it was 5 years ago, and its free (in some cases).. yet i choose to pay for a connection that sometimes is waay faster and is generally a better deal: $12 for dialup vs. $60 for something 30 times faster [sometimes], is always on and can be shared across all the computers in my house easily.. the choice is a no-brainer for me.
the internet is a life sustaining thing for some... i make my money from it. if i have no access to the net, i cant make money. And if a DSL provider would improve their lines in my area (sbc) then I would gladly pay for a quality $100 connection. The problem is that companies are more than willing to take your money, and give you just a little bit above what it would take to piss you off enough to leave. In comcast's case, they're a monopoly in most area's, therefore, they can dip well below that, because they know you have no where else to go.
Personally, i feel that instead of instituting a broadband "bill of rights" we should opt to institute a simple law: No monopolies. When there is no competition in a given area, the government steps in and creates it with a municipally-run ISP, or the city/county goes on the hunt for an ISP who will create competition. The market will beat comcast into shape, not some stupid $1000 fine. Line-sharing isn't the answer--that's not competition. The phone company is 1 isp, period. The cable company is another. None of this Earthlink over TW lines or what not. The cable & phone companies need to go head to head, or cable vs. dsl vs. ftth vs. satellite vs. other alternatives. Thats real competition: people know DSL is better for gaming, but cable is generally faster, so people should have the choice on which they want (between those 2 at a minimum). Right now however, people are stuck with one or the other usually, and in that case, they're stuck with whatever the ISP decides to hand out to them, be it a quality service, pure crap (like comcast), or something in the middle.
This entire industry is so messed up... and the FCC really isn't helping. Slapping huge monopolies on the wrist isnt the answer either. Nor is 'pseudo competition' via line-sharing. We need REAL competition. Let capitalism do its thing, even if it involves action from the government to get it started.
Just my view on all this BS
-fuzy
--
[referring to the RIAA...] These guys buy congress people like M&Ms | |
| | | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: No wonder... In before we get a certain member who will come flying to the aid of Comcast.
When you hold a franchise and/or monopoly, you need to be bound by certain terms and provisions. If you cannot hold your end, then you need to make way for someone who will. | |
| | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Well, 95% per week does mean that an 8 hour outage on any given day puts them in violation. As well, a 6 hour high usage period on one node could put them in violation of the 18 hours at 1 megabit requirement. The provisions also say that service may not be completely down for 30 minutes, or less than 512kb for more than 60 minutes nor provided upload bandwidth under 128kb for more than 60 minutes.
The email standards are not just the servers being up, but transmitting outbound messages within 5 minutes (95% of the time).
Each individual violation (per user) is worth anywhere from 10% of the monthly fee for that user to $1,000 per user.
The cable tv provisions won't fall because there is much more backing those up and those are actually far more lenient than the cable internet provisions (esp considering it takes a bit more to lose cable tv compared to cable internet).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
| | | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: No wonder... I'm not sure cable TV provisions are far more lenient.
For example, a TV outage is defined as the loss of a single channel. | |
| |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| The franchise agreement gives the cable franchise one day to restore service and exempts them for circumstances beyond their control (i.e. a failure on behalf of a programming provider), so it does seem to be more lenient in comparison.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
| | |
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: No wonder... In the same vein, Comcast wouldn't be held liable for failure of the backbone, just the local part of their network, and advertised services (email, webspace). | |
| 
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| Thumbs up to my neighbors... Montgomery County isn't too far from where I live in Virginia. Kudos and thumbs up to them for developing something like this to force some responsibility on their cable provider.
In Fairfax County, all we have is a county agency to complain to if there are billing problems with cable providers, etc. And this agency does not actually have any regulatory power to do anything-- they just track complaints and help work with you to resolve the problem. (I know about this, as I had a complaint with Cox that they worked with me to resolve. I was preparing to take my problem to small claims court when it was resolved.)
Perhaps if Fairfax County had a commission of individuals that could hand out fines to resolve problems, we would have better service and a more responsive cable company. Admittedly, I haven't used Cox in quite a while and it's possible that they have improved-- I certainly hope this is the case.
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! | |
| | | | | | | | 
not2cr8iv
join:2000-08-20
Potomac, MD
| Re: Thumbs up to my neighbors... Thanks.
BTW, if you ever have an outage, just try to get the 10% per day credit. It's been my experience that while that policy is printed on every bill, Comcast refuses to give it. Their customer service reps aren't even aware that's a proviosion of the franchise agreement. | |
| | | | | | | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| said by not2cr8iv :
Thanks.
BTW, if you ever have an outage, just try to get the 10% per day credit. It's been my experience that while that policy is printed on every bill, Comcast refuses to give it.
Then just pay 90% of your bill (or 80%, or 70%, etc, etc). If enough people did this, then I assure you that Comcast would likely get the message. Another, more costly, option would be for each person who is so inclined to pay the full bill and then file a lawsuit against Comcast in small claims court.
Also, is there an agency within the county that will record and track consumer complaints about this? If enough people called when there was an outage, then I'm sure that this could be used as ammunition by the county to either fine Comcast or kick them out altogether. There are plenty of other cable companies out there. If nobody wants to serve Rockville or the surrounding area, I'm sure that a community cable company can be started to give residents better service, more channels, and an all-around better experience for less money anyway.
I hope that more communities begin to follow the example here and hold their cable companies accountable for dismal service. I guess, though, that the proof of how well this works will be seen a year from now when we all can look back at the changes in service and see.
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! | |
| | | | | | | | Tnek
join:2002-01-15
Rockville, MD | I have to add my thanks, as well! Comcast's cable tv service has been pathetic (not to mention the ISP side of the monopoly). | |
| 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| So they can't cap? If they have to provide 1Mbps for at least 18 hours a day then, you should be able to download 8.1GB a day if they cut off service after 18 hours. Which is 243GB a month. If this reasoning holds true then it looks as if Montgomery County is going to kick ass for broadband. If that cable company can handle the load then they will also be one of the best in the country. Unless they are still allowed caps. | |
| | DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| Re: So they can't cap? said by insomniac84 :
If they have to provide 1Mbps for at least 18 hours a day then, you should be able to download 8.1GB a day if they cut off service after 18 hours. Which is 243GB a month. If this reasoning holds true then it looks as if Montgomery County is going to kick ass for broadband. If that cable company can handle the load then they will also be one of the best in the country. Unless they are still allowed caps.
The document doesn't say that you can download 1Mbps for 18 hours a day. It merely says the cable operator has to be able to provide that RATE for 18 hours a day (and then only to the gateway).
As I recall, there is a minimum stated elsewhere in the same document that says consumers should be able to download no less than 3G/day and 30G/month.
As others have said already many times, these are really rock bottom standards which any broadband provider ought to be willing to agree they can provide. | |
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| fines When are people going to get it? fines dont work. they just get filtered back down into the users bill and its business as usual for the provider. so those that want to punish those companies are only fueling the need for their next rate increase.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| Re: fines True but all the alternatives are worse. Right now, fines (and other adjuticatory actions provided by that same bill) appear to hold the most promise for getting action.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-22 22:26:24] | |
| | | | |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: fines I believe they should be price regulated and have to get some approval of some comittee (kind of like the electric and phone co's do) they need to prove they need the increase, not just 'wanting to recoup the fine they got for shoddy service'
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | | | DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| Re: fines said by dvd536 :
I believe they should be price regulated and have to get some approval of some comittee (kind of like the electric and phone co's do) they need to prove they need the increase, not just 'wanting to recoup the fine they got for shoddy service'
Of course, price regulation is no good without service regulation - cause if you fix the price, they can just lower the service to save money and maintain profits. Which brings us right back to where we started: service standards
So my questions to you are:
1) do you agree that service standards are necessary?
2) in this proposed scenario of yours, what happens when service standards are not met? | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| how 'bout a county fiber system? Instead of trying to regulate at the county level, maybe we should convince the county (or Rockville City) to install their own fiber system. It seems to be working wonders at getting the attention of internet providers in the these small communities that can't get anyone interested in providing service, until they decide to do it themselves.
Something like that might even get verizon off their @ss to upgrade their equipment and provide DSL further than 15Kft from their COs | |
| | DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Re: how 'bout a county fiber system? I'm torn between saying that's a great idea and the thought that the last thing I want is my government in charge of our internet service. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·
·
Re: Thumbs up to my neighbors...
But seriously, how else can you punish a cable company if not by fining them? I am sure we all agree that they need to be punished when they cannot or will not provide decent service for their subscribers. Turning the other cheek and believing that it's just fine is certainly not an acceptable option in my eyes. (If it is, let me know so that I can start my own cable company and begin ripping people off right now!)