Bartz

The CEO of the Yahoo! has been shown the door, but unlike many recently-unemployed workers who get the bad news during an exit interview, Carol Bartz learned she was out in a humiliating phone call from the board of directors.

That left Bartz telling employees she’d been fired in an internal memo sent from her iPad.

Investors were happy to see the back of Bartz, sending Yahoo! shares higher on the news.  Bartz faced a growing number of critics in the past few years, almost immediately after arriving as CEO in early 2009.  Much like Yahoo! itself, her critics accused her of being out of touch with Internet culture and the realities of today’s high-tech businesses.

Bartz was no friend of coordinating expanded and improved broadband projects through the government.  She opposed the National Broadband Plan and Net Neutrality policies, dismissing both as government interference.  That put her in direct opposition to Google, which has spent millions in the public policy arena to influence expanded broadband in the United States.

Despite the lackluster results Yahoo! managed under her leadership, Bartz remained well-compensated, earning $60 million over the past two years.

Yahoo! has remained a challenged endeavor as a first generation Internet superstar long-faded after the dot.com crash in 2000.  Various efforts to relaunch Yahoo!’s flagging advertising revenue business, long dominated by Google, have not been very successful.  Yahoo!’s biggest problem has been its lack of innovation, creating new reasons for web visitors to return to a company that used to be a household name.

Now some believe the only hope Yahoo! has left is to sell itself to someone else.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Broadband Regulation 3-2-10 .flv[/flv]

Free Press’ policy director Ben Scott held his own, despite being hopelessly outnumbered, in a business-friendly CNBC ‘Power Lunch’ debate over broadband public policy held in March 2010.  Scott faced Yahoo! CEO Carol Bartz, Larry Clinton from the “Internet Security Alliance,” which receives substantial support — not disclosed by CNBC — from AT&T and Verizon, and CNBC’s clueless Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, who insisted 99 percent of America already subscribes to broadband.  All of the industry talking points were on hand, which isn’t too surprising when they come from industry front groups like the ‘ISA.’ (3/3/2010 — 5 minutes)

Too bad Comcast doesn't allow their Internet customers to use the service until 'xfinity.'

A Comcast customer of seven years has been warned if he exceeds the company’s arbitrary 250GB usage cap one more time, his family will be cut off from the cable company’s Internet service for one year.

Jrodefeld is just one more example of a customer who never thought he would have to monitor an online usage gauge to enjoy the Internet service he pays good money to receive.  But Comcast has deemed him an Internet abuser for exceeding a usage limit the company takes pains to bury in its lengthy terms and conditions, far away from glitzy marketing promising a fast, always-on experience.

In my house there are five people with five computers, several smartphones, a Playstation 3 and AppleTV all connected to the Internet through a wireless router.  Several of us are tech minded people who need to be able to send and receive large amounts of data through our network and publish material on the Internet.

Not only that, but I have (legally) downloaded films through places like iTunes and downloaded games and software in the same manner.  I create digital content (web pages, animation, other content) and publish it on the Internet. Not only that, but I send this content to friends and colleagues through web hosting sites like Netload.  I download games and watch streaming Netflix through my Playstation 3.

I think it is absolutely beyond belief that Comcast can offer the speeds that they do, with the evolving demands of the Internet and modern digital demands that people have, and think that 250GB is sufficient for even the moderately tech savvy user.  This data cap is absolutely horrible and is an insult to my family and an abomination given how much money we have given to Comcast over the last several years for their service, amounting in the thousands of dollars.  Not to mention that we signed up with the idea of getting an “always on”, unlimited service.

Jrodefeld claims his family steers clear of the usual suspect of heavy usage consumption — peer-to-peer software.  But with five tech-savvy teenagers and high-tech workers living under one roof, Comcast’s usage meter reflected the family was several times over the company’s usage limits:

• In May, 2011 the total data used was:  1363GB
• In June, 2011 the total data used was:  758GB
• In July, 2011 the total data used was:  1271GB

Based on a review of the applications being run by those achieving that level of usage, online file backup is usually the culprit generating the most usage.  That is closely followed by avid online streaming and gaming.  While game-play itself is probably not much of a factor, the relentless number of game updates and new games distributed over an Internet connection can easily exceed several gigabytes each.  The family also streams some very high bitrate HD movies over a video rental service that uses their Comcast Internet connection to provide the video.  That can run nearly 10GB an hour in some cases, Jrodefeld says.

For usage cap opponents, this represents the perfect example of what can happen in families that rely on video streaming and have teenagers living at home.  While one individual may have little trouble staying within Comcast’s arbitrary 250GB limit, unchanged since its introduction in 2008, the more Internet-savvy members in a household sharing a connection, the bigger the risk for Internet Overcharging or a warning e-mail.

Comcast says their average user keeps usage well under 10GB per month.  But they don’t provide any demographic breakdown of usage profiles.  Older households may pay for an Internet account exclusively for web browsing and e-mail.  Younger households, those with teenagers, and cord-cutters who rely on Internet video streaming will almost certainly use considerably more.

Jrodefeld can’t believe Comcast has stuck his family with a “one size fits all” Internet experience.  And their reasons for the 250GB usage cap don’t make any sense.

“On the one hand, it is said that a user going over that threshold hurts the Internet experience for other users in your area, and on the other hand Comcast claims that the ‘average’ user uses only 2-4gb per month,” he notes. “If that is the case, then multiple users who average 250GB a month would slow down the Internet far more than one individual who uses, say, 500GB in a month.”

“If such a small number of users exceed the cap, Comcast’s network should easily be able to allow that without it affecting other users,” he argues. “If, on the other hand, many users are exceeding the cap, it means that the limit is far too small and Comcast should upgrade their infrastructure if they cannot keep up with user demands.”

The cap-free alternative for Comcast's "heavy users."

In fact, Comcast has upgraded the Internet experience for most of their customers considerably since they introduced a usage cap.  The company has aggressively deployed DOCSIS 3 upgrades, exponentially increasing the amount of bandwidth available in individual neighborhoods, allowing them to sell highly-profitable, faster tiers of service and eliminating congestion issues.  But no matter what speed you buy, or how much you spend, Comcast imposes the same 250GB usage limit on all residential accounts.

Comcast company officials had nothing to offer Jrodefeld, but several other Comcast customers did: upgrade to a Business Class account, if only to be rid of the usage limits.  Comcast Business Class service currently has no usage limitations, and carries this pricing in the northeast, before taxes and fees:

• Starter Plan — 12/2Mbps:  $59.95/mo Best Value
• Preferred Plan — 16/2Mbps:  $89.95/mo
• Premium Plan — 22/5Mbps:  $99.95/mo Best Speed/Performance Value
• Deluxe Plan — 50/10Mbps:  $189.95/mo
• Installation Fee: 1 year contract = $199, 2 years = $99, 3 years = $49

The alternative is to sign with a telephone company provider, but AT&T also has a 250GB usage limit on their U-verse service, and charges an overlimit fee of $10 for every 50GB of excess usage.  Verizon FiOS offers unlimited service.

Five years ago, municipal Wi-Fi projects were enjoying a small boom.  The concept of providing low-cost or free Internet access seemed like a winner because it could provide service to those who could not afford traditional broadband, would stimulate economic development downtown, and possibly attract business as shoppers stopped in cafes or stores to use their wireless devices.  In some communities, just the spectacle of a city-wide high technology wireless network delivered worthwhile bragging rights that adjacent communities didn’t have.

For most city or town officials pondering investment in a Wi-Fi network, the idea germinates from a perceived lack of service from private providers.  If private companies were delivering the service, few communities would spend the time, effort, and money duplicating it.

In the community of Marshalltown, public Wi-Fi in 2005 was a service only found in a small selection of stores and cafes in the central business district.  The Marshalltown Economic Development Impact Committee sought to change that, promoting a plan to construct a free-to-use Wi-Fi network covering a 20-block radius centered on the Marshall County Courthouse.  The community of 27,000 got a three month trial of the downtown Wi-Fi network in 1995, with the city and county sharing 50 percent of its cost, with the remaining 50 percent paid for by private donations.

Mediacom, the cable company serving Marshalltown, was incensed by the notion of a community-owned broadband provider delivering improved (and free) Internet access across the city.  Even worse in their eyes, local government officials were pondering creating a public broadband utility.

Marshalltown (Marshall County), Iowa

It wasn’t long before new, shadowy groups with names like “Project Taxpayer Protection” showed up in town attacking the concept of municipal Internet access.  After a blizzard of brochures and exaggerated claims about “government broadband,” the network became a point of controversy among the locals.

Only later would the community learn the group (whose status as a non-profit was later revoked by the Internet Revenue Service for failure to file timely reports on its funding and activities) was actually funded mostly by Mediacom itself, with the full support of the Iowa Cable Association.

The astroturf campaign against public involvement in Wi-Fi, which could threaten Mediacom’s broadband service profits, was effectively an investment against competition.  It was an effort that paid dividends by late 2005, when the city and Mediacom suddenly announced a new “public-private partnership” to administer and expand the Wi-Fi network.  There were a few important changes, however:

1. Mediacom’s concept of “free” was markedly different than the designers’ original vision.  The cable company had other ideas, placing restrictions on how much “free use” was allowed;
2. Customers who used the newly-announced “free service” got it at speeds not much better than dial-up and definitely slower than 3G;
3. Residential Mediacom broadband customers could get unlimited time on the formerly-free network, if they paid $19.95 a month for 256kbps access;
4. To make the network seem business-friendly, business customers were told they could get up to 10Mbps service for $59.95 a month.

The goal of the partnership, according to Mike Miller, chairman of the Marshalltown Economic Development Impact Committee, was to see low-cost broadband Internet access citywide by the end of 2006.

Oh, and Mediacom insisted on something else: no more talk of a city-created municipal telecommunications provider, at least for a year anyway.

“We commend you on the foresight and vision to do this,” Bill Peard, Mediacom’s government affairs manager, told city officials at the time the deal was announced.

Friends until the community-owned...

Once Mediacom got its hands on the formerly community-owned network, it was the beginning of the end.

Business customers could not get Mediacom to sell them access at the promised price because representatives could not find the offer.

It was much worse for residential users.

Free Wi-Fi access soon became limited to one hour a day, up to 10 hours per month for non-Mediacom customers.  After that, you paid if you wanted more.

City and company officials spent most of their time wrangling over the costs of the service and its future potential.  What city officials were not planning for was the network’s virtual demise at the hands of the cable company.

...free Wi-Fi network is at an end.

Today, free access is a distant memory, as Mediacom pulled the plug claiming there was “limited interest.”

Effectively, Mediacom’s idea of a public-private partnership was the systematic decommissioning of a community’s public Internet alternative, all to protect its own broadband business.

That’s a lesson of caution for any community seeking to team up with private broadband providers.  Marshalltown allowed that partnership to first and foremost serve Mediacom’s business interests, not the public.  Now that network is effectively gone and largely-forgotten.

That suits Mediacom just fine.

For the sake of public relations, most cable and telephone companies are happily providing service credits to customers who ask after they lost service as a result of Hurricane Irene.  Denying those requests through invocation of weasel contract clauses referencing “acts of god” or “weather-related incidents” will assuredly leave customers less than pleased.  That’s a lesson some employees in Comcast’s call center still need to learn.

The fact is, most consumers shouldn’t have to pay for service undelivered.

Here is one Comcast customer’s plight:

When I contacted Comcast in the days following Irene I was initially told I’d be without service for a day and would receive credit for the loss. When I called two days later, I was told it would be two days, but I would receive credit. When I called six days later I was told they didn’t know how long it would be and that when it was restored I would not be receiving credit for the lost service.

“Wait, you’re telling me you’re going to try and bill me for service I never received,” I asked the customer service agent.

“We’re not going to try. We will be billing you,” he responded.

Another customer service representative verified the information with a supervisor, but sounded as incredulous as I felt when he came back to the phone.

The outage, he explained, is now considered an “act of god”.

“I can’t believe we’re going to do this,” he said.

He suggested I call back when the service was restored for credit.

“I can’t believe we’re not going to give credit,” he said again, before telling me to have a nice weekend.

To be fair, this is the experience of a single customer, and a search of prior storm events in Comcast service areas does show the company is usually willing to issue storm-related credits, as long as it was their service that was disrupted.  One of the issues cable providers have to deal with in weather disasters is ascertaining exactly who and what suffered the outage.  If the area’s local power company loses service, Comcast cable service could be affected directly or not at all.  A widespread outage could cause amplifiers to lose power, cutting off cable service to those with or without power.  But should Comcast credit you for lost service if the only thing keeping you from watching is a downed power line in your neighborhood that hasn’t affected cable service?

That dilemma many customer care professionals solve with courtesy credits to maintain customer goodwill.  But not every provider may automatically issue them, especially when dealing with low level employees in a customer care center.

If Comcast is refusing to provide you with service credits, there are a few quick steps to bypass “the unauthorized to give you what you want”-team and get your money back:

1. If calling by phone, ask if you are talking with a local customer care representative or one located thousands of miles away.  Ask to be transferred to a local office for assistance.  Those on the ground going through the same storm nightmares you are are likely to be more amenable towards giving you a service credit.
2. If using an e-mail form or online chat, call Comcast or visit your local Comcast cable store instead.  Again, someone sharing your misery is more likely to find a way to get you a service credit than someone who hasn’t lived through it.
3. File a complaint with the Better Business Bureau online requesting your service credit.  While Comcast is not BBB accredited, the organization has helped satisfactorily close more than 2,000 customer complaints.
4. Call your local television or newspaper “consumer reporter” and alert them.  Bad publicity is a great way to get any unyielding business to bend.

We expect a few negative stories in the media will be more than enough to inspire Comcast to provide service credits, gracefully.

Besides, if Comcast gives you a hard time about “acts of god,” you can always tell them the same thing when they ask to be compensated for cable equipment that succumbed in the storm.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC Hassling LIPA 9-2-11.mp4[/flv]

Storm-weary Long Island residents are getting fed up with extended service outages.  One went as far as to allegedly threaten a “Columbine-style attack” on a Long Island power facility.  Repair crews are also being hassled.  WABC in New York reports.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCBS Anger in LI 9-1-11.mp4[/flv]

WCBS found the same kind of anger in Suffolk County, aggravated by self-congratulating press conferences by utility companies even as hundreds of thousands of customers remained in the dark with no end in sight.  One Connecticut man even threatened a repair crew with a gun for trespassing.  (2 minutes)