North Coventry Township Station 64 Fire Engine - Ready to Respond to Comcast Mishaps Anytime

“I called Comcast because I wanted the kitchen TV hooked up to cable,” she said, describing how the digital TV converter box hadn’t worked as planned. “They said no problem, we can do it, no extra charge.” Tyson was already a Comcast subscriber before the incident Monday.

“They drilled right into the electrical box,” Tyson said in disbelief, looking over at the side of her home where a long black burn mark extended up to the roof from a burnt electrical box and meter.

Verizon must be enjoying the irony.  Just a few days ago, we shared with you the ad that Comcast was running in Pennsylvania showing reckless Verizon FiOS installers tearing up yards and engaging in what can only be described as ‘dangerous antics’ by the telephone company’s installers.  Verizon wants those ads pulled for being out of bounds.

After The Mercury published an article detailing one 83 year old North Coventry woman’s plight (her house is now uninhabitable), Comcast may have to yank the ad just to save face.

Tyson, who was in her house while the cable man worked outside, said she heard “two loud blasts — ‘Boom, Boom’ — then I came out of the house to see what was going on.”

“It was burning like mad,” she said, when the serviceman ran up to her and asked if she had a fire extinguisher, which lay spent on Tyson’s front lawn as fire crews worked.

Tyson may have been lucky as fire officials found the arcing had sparked a fire in wood behind the electrical box in the basement which spread to the floor joists. But the majority of damage was to the electrical system.

“The house is not liveable until the electric is redone,” Schaeffer said. There also was no water for the home since the well pump won’t work without electricity, according to officials.

Jean Tyson’s home sustained approximately $20,000 in damage.  She, and her dog, are now staying at a neighbor’s home until repairs can be completed.

If North Coventry was wired for Verizon FiOS, they should be swooping in to offer her a free Verizon FiOS account, thus proving yet again that payback is a ….

To punish Comcast for being naughty, we bring you one additional FiOS ad, pointed out by our reader Smith6612, featuring Michael Bay.  It’s definitely worth the entertainment value:

Thanks to Broadband Reports for calling our attention to this story.

For those who tried to watch the live stream from this past Monday’s Internet Town Hall from Toronto, it was a process that demonstrated the limitations of broadband service in Canada.  Evidently the hotel broadband connection was inadequate for the task, and the stream suffered ongoing video and audio problems for the duration.

An audio podcast version has now become available and is included below.  Because the event runs nearly two hours, you may wish to download the audio and listen on the go.  If you want to listen here, remember that the audio player will only work as long as you remain on this page.

Internet Town Hall On Canadian Broadband/Net Neutrality Issues – Toronto, June 8, 2009 (1 Hour 50 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Comcast apparently doesn’t like Verizon invading its home turf.  The Philadelphia-based cable company and the New York-based telephone company are engaged in an all-out ad war in southeastern Pennsylvania, and Verizon is calling “foul.”

Comcast replies turnabout is fair play, telling the Philadelphia Business Journal:

“Verizon’s been running a negative campaign against Comcast for years and its response to our campaign shows that they can dish it out but they can’t take it. As might be expected, the better the advertising and the more traction that it gains with consumers, the louder the competitor will object,” said Jennifer Khoury, Comcast spokeswoman.

So what ad put Verizon over the edge? Apparently it wasn’t the Verizon sales-stalker who invades people’s cars, front lawns, and demands credit card numbers of women at their doorstep.  No, it was the fact that Comcast depicted a typical Verizon FiOS installation as resembling a chaotic home lawn invasion, complete with heavy ‘yard wrecking’ equipment, life-threatening recklessness, and a monthly bill so prolific in pages, it requires a forklift to deliver.

That did it.

“These ads have people ripping up property, putting lives in danger and suggesting that this is typical of FiOS installations,” Eric Rabe, Verizon’s senior vice president for media relations, said. “That is an outrageous characterization and it has to stop.”

Rabe wasn’t sure if Verizon would sue if Comcast doesn’t knock it off.  The two companies are “having conversations,” according to Rabe.

While they talk, let’s explore the offending ad, plus several others from both sides.  It must be nice to live in a heavily competitive market.  Too many of us do not.  Comcast limits monthly usage to 250GB.  Verizon FiOS has no limit.

[flv width=”640″ height=”360″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast FiOS Bashing Ad 1.flv[/flv]

More video follows below…

… Continue Reading

FairPoint customers pay $25 fee to stop automatic payment withdrawals FairPoint failed to make, causing accounts to fall past due

By late March, those customers who had dial tones from their FairPoint lines began to grow concerned about the newest nightmare from the company that took over telephone service across three New England states.  Billing problems began immediately after FairPoint converted to its own billing systems, and customers noticed.

The company explained it had a “loss of data” when their own billing system went online, and information from Verizon’s old billing system never made it to the new FairPoint system.

The result was loss of confidence in FairPoint, as customers grew increasingly concerned about inaccurate bills, lost payments, and as one New Hampshire couple discovered, the company’s inability to process “automatic payments” from customers on time, generating past due bills.  Concerned about the impact late notices will have on their credit rating, they spend $25 to get their bank to stop automatic payments that FairPoint failed to make on time.  WMUR reports:

[flv width=”480″ height=”360″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WMUR Manchester Fairpoint Customers Report Problems With Phone Service 3-30-09.flv[/flv]

In Vermont, customers frustrated with bills that never arrived wanted out.  As one customer working in Saint Johnsbury discovered, there was no way to reach the company to tell them to cancel service.  Vermont state regulators finally grew tired of FairPoint’s Public Relations excuses.  They demanded evidence service was improving.  WCAX reports:

… Continue Reading

Gazing into our future, unless Internet Overcharging stops before it gets started (Photo: Sean McGrath)

Americans have a lot to learn.  Our neighbors to the north have been living our broadband future, and it’s time to start paying attention.

Broadband providers that want to implement their Internet Overcharging schemes often claim that this isn’t unprecedented.  People in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a few other countries already face a broadband service hobbled by arbitrary limits, and ‘you don’t hear them complaining.’

Except you do.

The Canadian broadband market is remarkably similar to our own.  A very comfortable duopoly of providers – one cable operator and one telephone company provide the vast majority of Canadians with their Internet service.  Several smaller independent providers, typically reselling access to Bell Canada’s network they’ve contracted to obtain at wholesale pricing, make up most of the rest.

Five years ago, those two providers clawed each other fighting for market share, and independent providers were popping up to provide more flexible broadband accounts for those looking for lower pricing or different speeds.  Canada rose to second place in broadband among the 30 nations that belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Evidently, the price and service war ended with a truce in the last 24 months.  Then came the classic signs of Internet Overcharging: new restrictions and limits on usage, overlimit and penalty fees for exceeding those limits, a slowdown in competition to build better infrastructure offering higher speeds, and even “traffic shaping,” which in reality means artificially restricting selected services moving across a broadband network.

Rogers Internet Overcharging limbo dance reduces usage allowances on new customers. (click to enlarge)

Even more irritating for customers, rate increases accompanied all of these new restrictions.  Rogers Cable, which helped get the ball rolling on Internet Overcharging schemes, raised broadband rates March 1st and then announced a “free speed upgrade” this past month, bringing their broadband speed in Toronto to 10Mbps for $45.26US per month, before taxes, with a 60GB limit and “traffic shaping.”

Customers looking for cheaper broadband from Rogers have been subjected to a reduction in the usage allowance since the Internet Overcharging schemes began.  Now, customers looking for the least expensive plan pay $26.23US per month for 500kbps “broadband” with a usage limit of 2GB per month.  Exceed that, and your overlimit penalty fee is an enormous $5.00CAD per gigabyte.  When the first Internet Overcharging scheme was introduced, “lite” customers could use up to 60GB per month.  It’s just more evidence that when broadband companies are allowed to implement Internet Overcharging schemes like this, the broadband limbo dance begins, with customers facing smaller and smaller “allowances” at the whim of the provider.

Rogers competition, primarily from Bell Canada, did what can be expected in a lightly competitive marketplace — they announced Internet Overcharging schemes of their own, trapping many Canadians into restrictive broadband service from every provider around.

Canadians hate the schemes, despite broadband industry propaganda that suggests customers didn’t mind paying more for less.

“Broadband in this country has completely stalled,” Stop the Cap! reader Brent, living near Ottawa wrote to us.

For several years, everything was heading in the right direction in Canada.  Broadband service was extending from cities into smaller towns and communities, even in the Prairies, BC and Alberta, which have much more empty space between developed communities.  Here in Ontario, Rogers and Bell are the dominant companies.  It was bad enough when Rogers starting using traffic shaping to slow down things like peer to peer services, so you often find your speeds slowing down by half or more.  Internet video is not as common in Canada because services like Hulu see the usage allowances and don’t bother to come here, because people can’t afford to watch them.  But some independent producers do have online video, that they freely distribute using peer to peer.  It’s throttled by Rogers, though, so it takes forever to load.

Then their cap came.  We get 60GB per month on our service.  I have a wife and two teenage daughters.  Everyone is online here.  Between all of us, 60GB is never enough, and we have to constantly watch them because they like to have friends over to do things on the computer together.  We have to keep track of everything they do, and there are fights all of the time about who used what.  You can never relax when you are online anymore, because you have to always be worried about what something might cost you.

Even worse, Rogers interferes with your service when you reach 75% of your allowance by injecting a warning banner on your web browser to tell you that you are approaching your limit for the month.  That process forces their announcement onto web page after web page, and you’ll know it because half the time those pages with a warning banner take much longer to load, if they load properly at all.  It doesn’t matter what page you are looking at, or who runs it.  Rogers feels they can put their banner on it.

I spent two weeks in the States at a friend’s home who had Verizon FiOS and I couldn’t believe the difference.  Using Canadian broadband and comparing it to Verizon FiOS is like the difference between dial-up service and the broadband service we used to have in this country.

Bell is now going to force limits on wholesale accounts as well. All of the independent companies that don’t currently have caps and allowances will now have to impose them, cutting off the last competitive choices we had.  It’s a nice racket.

Reading the American papers, it’s all familiar to me.  It’s the same things we were told.

• There are “Internet hogs” using “too much service” so we have to charge them more.
• We have to use the extra money to build better networks.
• We need to traffic shape to make sure everyone can use our service.
• It’s about fairness for everyone.

No. It’s about getting more money from you and pocketing it.  The people they stereotype as “Internet hogs” turn out be ordinary families.  Just because we may not know about some of the Internet cutting edge services becoming available, our kids do.

Canada’s providers aren’t using the all the extra money to build better networks, they are just treating them as profits.  Our speeds are still slower than Americans get. They reduced the usage allowances on many people even further. They still traffic shape even on the networks they claim they were “improving.”  Everyone’s Internet bill went up.  Nobody is saving anything.  There is nothing fair about duopoly pricing.

Dr. Michael Geist

Brent’s point about Bell Canada imposing Internet Overcharging schemes on their wholesale business accounts rings familiar.  Earthlink wanted to sell its broadband Internet service that travels across Time Warner Cable’s lines at the current unlimited pricing they charge today.  Whether they would be allowed to do so under TWC’s original Internet Overcharging proposal was highly doubtful.

Independent providers in Canada are upset about Bell Canada’s attempt to impose new limitations on their wholesale accounts, because it threatens their existence.

Two weeks ago, Dr. Michael Geist appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to discuss the state of telecommunications in Canada.

Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and noted expert on the state of Canadian broadband, called the developing situation in Canada “a crisis.”

Limiting competition and throwing your duopoly weight around has been a hallmark of insufficient oversight and regulatory control in under-competitive markets and Geist brought examples of providers engaged in mischief:

• Telus blocked access to a union supporting website during a labour dispute, blocking more than 600 other sites in the process
• Shaw advertised a $10 premium surcharge for customers using Internet telephony services opening the door to creating a competitive advantage over third party services
• Rogers currently degrades the performance of certain applications such as BitTorrent, widely used by software developers and independent film makers to distribute their work
• Bell openly throttles BitTorrent traffic, a practice that has been challenged before the CRTC

Bill St. Arnaud

Competition can provide some answers, but not all.  It’s obvious new laws are required to put a stop to Internet Overcharging while real competition can develop.

As Stop the Cap! has documented, when fed-up municipalities reject their status as a “broadband backwater” and seek to deploy the advanced fiber networks that they need to spur economic growth and development, incumbent providers engage in lawsuits and delay tactics.  But in many communities, in the end, the threat of municipal competition finally forces those networks to commit to the upgrades they refused to provide earlier.

Bill St. Arnaud, Chief Research Officer for CANARIE, ponders Canada’s future as the country slips further and further behind in OECD rankings because of the broadband duopoly in the country.  Speaking with CBC Radio’s Nora Young, who hosts Spark, a twice-weekly radio program about technology and culture, he contemplates a solution to this problem that builds on the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program in the United States — by publicly funding an advanced “fiber to the home network” and then open it up to all providers to compete for customers.

Audio Clip: Bill St. Arnaud Appears on CBC Radio’s Spark – June 3, 2009 (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.