Toy Alarm: No peace of mind here.

A Houston couple paid Comcast $30 a month over seven years for Comcast’s home security system they believed would help keep them safe. But the alarm system hadn’t worked right from the day Comcast’s technicians installed it, and the cable company’s final offer of compensation was a $20 service credit.

Understandably, the couple wasn’t happy paying for Comcast’s pretend peace of mind.

“I’m a loyal customer and my thing is I don’t mind paying for a service if you’re providing the service,” Lisa Leeson told KPRC-TV, “but they weren’t.”

Comcast’s Insecurity System finally revealed its true self one windy February day. The Leeson family had left to do some errands and just as they had done more than 2,500 times before over the past 80 months, they armed Comcast’s home security system from its control panel before heading out.

“We would set it,” explained Leeson. “It would make the little noise that it makes like it was activating.”

When they arrived home, the family was surprised to find their back door wide open. Fearing a break-in, they wondered why Comcast’s alarm wasn’t blaring, with notified authorities standing by to investigate.

Despite more than 26,000 burglaries in Houston every year, the Leeson family was lucky. A wind gust had blown the door open and their possessions were safe. The revelation the family was robbed anyway only came after calling Comcast to ask why their alarm never went off.

A representative promptly told the family it had monitored the status of the Leeson’s alarm 24/7 for the last seven years and it was offline for almost the entire time. Comcast knew about its non-security system since 2007, but never bothered to tell the family. A follow-up visit from a Comcast technician this month quickly revealed the alarm was installed improperly by the cable company.

“It was unable, even if wanted to, to actually call the police and or Comcast once it was activated,” explained Leeson.

So ultimately whose fault is it that Comcast’s home security system never worked? The company that improperly installed it and knew it wasn’t working for the duration of 80 monthly payments it faithfully collected for service never rendered, or the customer?

In the corporate world of Comcast, it’s absolutely the customer’s fault — exactly what both a customer service representative and a corporate spokesman told the Leeson family.

A Comcast customer service representative was only willing to offer a one-time $20 “inconvenience credit” and the corporate spokesman apologized but pointed to a line in Leeson’s alarm agreement where she agreed to “test her system on a regular basis.”

It simply wasn’t good enough to trust Comcast’s alarm control panel notifying the family the alarm was armed and security monitoring was enabled. She’d have to trigger the system, potentially annoying the neighbors and first responders to prove the system worked properly.

Houston police and fire officials beg to differ.

In an ongoing effort to reduce costly and unnecessary false alarms, the city has implemented alarm permit and penalty fees for wasting the time of emergency personnel.

A residential burglar alarm in the city of Houston requires an annual permit ranging in cost from $37-50. A fire alarm permit costs $80.29 the first year, $53.52 each year thereafter. Three false burglar alarm calls are allowed without a charge with a burglar alarm permit per year. The 4th and 5th false alarm call is chargeable at $50.00 each and the 6th and 7th call is chargeable at $75.00 each. Thereafter each false alarm call is chargeable at $100.00 each. Permits are subject to revocation after the 7th false call. Burglar alarm systems without a permit are chargeable at $107.05 per response and/or no response.

Hold-up/panic alarm systems are allowed one false call without charge with a hold-up/panic permit. Thereafter the 2nd call is chargeable at $128.45, the 3rd false call at $256.92 and the 4th false call is chargeable at $385.37. Thereafter the 5th false alarm and above are chargeable at $513.84 (each). Panic alarm systems without a permit are chargeable at $282.61 per response and/or no response.

False fire alarms carry penalties up to $385.37 per incident with a $115.61 collection fee.

After a local television station got involved in the dispute, Comcast softened their hard-line and refunded every penny Leeson paid for the home security system that had left the family vulnerable since the day Comcast incorrectly installed it.

But after what the Leeson family endured, other alarm system customers should check their contracts and make sure they verify their system is working properly. Don’t depend on the alarm provider to notify you.

Most modern alarm systems alert the monitoring company when activated. That company in turn notifies the police, fire department or ambulance. All three agencies recommend using a monitoring company to reduce the instances of false alarms. Older systems often used a built-in message tape recorded by the homeowner. When the alarm triggered, the system would phone 911 and play back the recorded message. Those systems are responsible for the largest percentage of false alarms.

Comcast says customers with its XFINITY alarm can test their systems using the My Account app on their smartphones. The Leeson family uses an older model Comcast security system that doesn’t work with the app.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KPRC Houston Comcast Insecurity System 5-28-14.flv[/flv]

KPRC in Houston has words of wisdom for Comcast security system owners. Are you really protected? (2:07)

Oliver points out President Obama is very close to Comcast’s top lobbyist (and Democratic fundraiser) David Cohen.

John Oliver, host of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight,” took nearly 15 minutes out of his show last night to present a detailed and unusually apt explanation of why Net Neutrality should matter to Americans.

Using a timely chart depicting Comcast’s Al Capone-like Internet protection racket, Oliver showed how Netflix performance rapidly deteriorated for Comcast customers until Netflix agreed to pay Comcast for a direct connection in February. Within days, performance rebounded to new highs.

In essence, Oliver explains, Net Neutrality is about the controversy of allowing Internet toll lanes.

Oliver shows an industry mouthpiece defending the concept as a “fast lane for everybody and a hyper speed lane for others,” to which Oliver responds, “Bullsh*t!”

“If we let cable companies offer two speeds of service, they won’t be [Jamaican sprinter] Usain Bolt and Usain Bolt on a motor bike,” Oliver warns. “They’ll be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolted to an anchor.”

Oliver added he was concerned most Americans were not paying attention to the issue, proclaiming it “boring.”

“And that’s the problem. The cable companies have figured out the great truth of America: if you want to do something evil, put it inside something boring,” he said. “Advocates should not be talking about protecting Net Neutrality. They shouldn’t even use that phrase. They should call it preventing cable company fuc*ery. Because that is what it is.”

Comcast’s Internet protection racket. Netflix watched customer streaming performance degrade on Comcast’s network until it signed a paid peering agreement with the cable company in February.

Oliver’s prescription for change is somewhat more dubious, however. He wants Internet trolls to overwhelm the FCC’s Net Neutrality comment mailbox:

I would like to address the Internet commenters out there directly. Good evening monsters, this may be the moment you spent your whole lives training for.

You’ve been out there ferociously commenting on dance videos of adorable 3-years-olds, saying things like, “Every child could dance like this little loser after one week of practice.” Or you’d be polluting Frozen’s Let It Go with comments like, “Ice Castle would give her hypothermia and she dead in an hour.” Or, and I know you’ve done this one commenting on this show: “F*ck this a**hole anchor […] ur just friends with terrorists xD.”

This is the moment you were made for commenters. Like Ralph Macchio, you’ve been honing your skills waxing cars and painting fences, well guess what? Now it’s time to do some f*king karate.

For once in your life we need you to channel that anger.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/HBO Last Week Tonight with John Oliver Net Neutrality 6-1-14.flv[/flv]

John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight addresses Net Neutrality to viewers who probably don’t understand a thing about it. Warning: Strong language.  (13:17)

Mayor Atkins

A North Carolina community concerned about alleged abuse of homeowners’ private property rights by Time Warner Cable has revoked all of the company’s easement agreements, exposing the cable operator to lawsuits from residents.

Mayor Miles Atkins observed Time Warner crews burying fiber optic lines on the property of local residents, well outside of the rights-of-way established by the local government along town-maintained streets.

The Charlotte Observer reported Atkins also personally witnessed crews burying cables outside his home — on a street where there is no right-of-way for utility companies.

Like many towns in North Carolina, Mooresville never established rights-of-way on older streets where above-ground utilities were installed decades earlier. Agreements with the owner of the utility pole governs the cables attached. In Mooresville, this generally includes electric, telephone, and two cable companies — Time Warner Cable and the community-owned MI-Connection, formerly owned by Adelphia Cable. Most rights-of-way and easement agreements in Mooresville cover buried cables.

Mooresville senior engineer Allison Kraft notified Time Warner Cable that the town has revoked all of its easement agreements with the company until Time Warner can prove it placed its buried cables only within the approved town rights-of-way.

If the cable company is found to have placed cables without permission on a homeowner’s private property, the resident can sue for damages and force the company to remove the offending line.

One Mooresville resident was suspicious of the town’s motives, however.

“I’m sure the town’s ownership of a competing cable company had nothing to do with their decision,” said Mooresville resident Scott Turner.

But Charley Patterson is happy the town is taking action, suggesting utility violations of easement boundaries are rampant.

“During the building of our church’s new parking lot, we found not one but several utilities that had buried cable in areas well out of the easement boundaries,” Patterson wrote. “There were seven utilities with buried cable. Our construction progress was dramatically impacted trying to identify where and who had buried the cable. And some had the gall to try to tell us that we had to pay for them to relocate when they were 20 to 30 feet on our property, not at all in the easement.”

And then there were three?

Deutsche Telekom has agreed to sell T-Mobile USA to the Japanese parent company of Sprint in a deal that would combine the third and fourth largest wireless companies in the United States under the Sprint brand.

Japan’s Kyodo News Agency said they learned about the buyout agreement from industry sources, but did not reveal any further details.

SoftBank CEO and Sprint chairman Masayoshi Son and his lobbyists have been promoting such a merger for weeks, so the outlines of a deal between the two companies come as no surprise.

Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son

U.S. regulators have repeatedly signaled their discomfort with any merger between Sprint and T-Mobile, however. Both the heads of the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Justice Department have repeatedly raised concerns about the emergence of just three national wireless competitors in the U.S.

AT&T is largely responsible for that perception after its failed attempt to buy T-Mobile in 2011. The large breakup fee and spectrum T-Mobile received after the deal collapsed helped T-Mobile relaunch as a feisty competitor that has forced competitors to cut prices. To regulators, it demonstrated the importance of having at least four national competitors, if only to check the dominance of leaders AT&T and Verizon Wireless. Both the FCC and Justice Department fear any additional mergers would lead to increased prices for U.S. consumers.

Son has argued that the four-competitor policy has left AT&T and Verizon dominant against their two much-weaker competitors. An enlarged Sprint would force broadband speeds upwards as a combined Sprint and T-Mobile launch a massive network upgrade that would force prices down.

Both Softbank and Deutsche Telekom seem eager to close a deal. Softbank is already arranging financing for the estimated $50 billion Deutsche Telekom is expected to ask for T-Mobile USA and the German owner of T-Mobile has sought to exit the U.S. market for at least two years, with the proceeds of any sale used to improve its operations in Germany and eastern Europe, where the company has been more profitable.

So far, Wall Street has had only a muted reaction to the merger news. Many analysts still expect U.S. regulators to shoot down any deal that proposes merging any of the four current large wireless carriers.

SoftBank CEO and Sprint chairman Masayoshi Son was interviewed at this week’s Code Conference. On the current state of wireless: “Oh my god, how can Americans live like this?” (1:23)

Laurence is the ex-CEO of Vodafone.

The new chief executive of one of Canada’s largest telecommunications companies has declared the country can’t support a fourth national wireless competitor because it will simply cost too much to build and maintain.

Guy Laurence has been very vocal about Canadian telecommunications policies since taking over for Nadir Mohamed who retired last year.

This week Laurence announced a reboot of Rogers Communications he dubbed v3.0, designed to face the “hard truth” that most Canadians despise the cable and wireless company.

“Every day I marvel at what an amazing company Ted [Rogers] built, Laurence said, referring to the company’s founder. “The mix of assets, the culture of innovation and depth of employee pride is extraordinary. But we’ve neglected our customers, and we’ve let our legacy of growth and innovation slip. The plan I’ve laid out will significantly improve the experience for our customers and re-establish our growth by better leveraging our assets and consistently executing as One Rogers.”

Most of the changes Laurence plans relate to its poorly-rated customer service. Laurence has insisted that all customer service functions, including call centers, customer service, service technicians and marketing will be combined into a single unit that will report directly to him.

But Laurence said nothing about improving service plans, dropping usage caps, or lowering prices.

Several long time Rogers executives are out the door, either voluntarily or quietly pushed out.

“When you remove overlap and reduce bureaucracy, and you create agility, then it takes less people in management. So there will be job losses at the management level. No doubt of this,” Laurence said. “But because this is not a cost story, I don’t have a dollar value or a number of people. I don’t even have the vaguest idea in my head what that might be.”

Like many American cable companies, Rogers has lost video customers although it is still growing its broadband business by picking up ex-DSL customers. With overall growth flat during 2013, the new CEO wants to maximize shareholder value by limiting the number of costly new projects launched. Instead, Laurence promised “fewer, more impactful initiatives” under Rogers 3.0.

Rogers will continue to depend heavily on its profitable wireless division, which competes against Bell and Telus.

Although Canadian government officials have repeatedly sought a fourth national competitor willing to break with tradition in the wireless market, Laurence says the government is engaged in wishful thinking if it believed a fourth carrier would shake things up in Canada.

“I’m not saying the government is wrong. I’m not saying that they should change their policy. My personal view is that it is difficult to see a scenario where a fourth carrier will be successful,” Laurence said. “What you saw in Europe was a number of different countries who pursued the four-carrier option for a period of five to seven years. It was politically very popularist and they were happy to follow that. What you clearly see now, and I cite Germany and France, is that they’ve started to realize that given the capital complexity involved in these companies, it is very difficult to support a fourth carrier.”

Canadian wireless companies have recently embraced a study by the Montreal Economic Institute that declared the presence of a fourth national carrier would be “wasteful.”

“It may be preferable for financial resources … to be concentrated in the hands of a few strong players willing to invest in new technologies and services rather than scattered among several small and feeble competitors trying to survive by selling at prices barely above marginal costs,” the report said.

The Montreal Economic Institute won’t reveal its donor list of corporations that pay for its research.

The Montreal Economic Institute is “funded by the voluntary donations of individuals, businesses and foundations that support its mission.” The MEI does not disclose the specifics of its donors, however, for fears that “organizations similar to the MEI” would have an opportunity to solicit funds. The foundation of the MEI’s mission statement is couched in basic free market ideology, such as the Randian conception that “people who make money are creating wealth.”

Despite asking repeatedly, MEI will not disclose whether its telecom-related studies were funded by the telecommunications companies named in their reports. But there is little doubt of MEI’s economic philosophy.

Michel Kelly-Gagnon, the president and CEO of MEI, has written a number of opinion pieces that further illuminate the mission of the organization, notes The Telecom Blog. Included among them are articles that suggest “true entrepreneurs… deserve our gratitude” and pieces decrying a “tax the rich” mentality. There’s even a bit about the “dangers” of so-called “Soviet imagery,” citing the “intellectual and moral recklessness” in a pair of teens audacious enough to wear red T-shirts featuring USSR emblems.

Canada’s Competition Bureau, less concerned with Soviet nostalgia, found different results from increased competition – at least $1 billion in savings as competing carriers are forced to increase the wireless penetration rate while working to lower prices.

Laurence said the only way a four-carrier government policy could work in Canada is if the federal government put up taxpayer money to build, update, and run a “modern communications network” across the country. If that happens, Rogers and other companies will only be too happy to use it to offer expanded service and competition, with no commitment it will cost any less.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MEI – The State of Competition in Canada’s Telecommunications Industry – Paul Beaudry IEDM.flv[/flv]

Paul Beaudry, associate researcher at the Montreal Economic Institute offers the amazing conclusion that more wireless competition in Canada is bad for consumers! (4:16)