Home » comcast cable » Recent Articles:

New Revelations About Comcast’s Role in Killing Hulu Sale Raise Doubts Regulators Can Trust Company

Phillip Dampier April 21, 2015 Comcast/Xfinity, Competition, Consumer News, Online Video, Public Policy & Gov't Comments Off on New Revelations About Comcast’s Role in Killing Hulu Sale Raise Doubts Regulators Can Trust Company

sun valleyDespite a firm commitment with the Justice Department not to be involved in the day-to-day management of Hulu as a condition of approving Comcast’s merger with NBC/Universal, new revelations suggest Comcast not only promoted the online video service to its partners as a nationwide streaming platform for the cable industry, it also convinced them not to sell the service to a Comcast competitor.

Two years ago, at the 2013 Allen & Co., conference held in the resort community of Sun Valley, Idaho, executives from Walt Disney/ABC, 21st Century Fox, and Comcast privately met to discuss the future of Hulu, the online video service. Hulu’s chief executive, Jason Kilar, had already made it clear he was preparing to leave the venture, possibly foreseeing a likely sale because of ongoing differences between two of Hulu’s three owners over the future direction of the service.

Rupert Murdoch’s FOX wanted Hulu to emphasize Hulu+, its subscription option. Disney/ABC believed Hulu worked best as a free, ad-supported service. Comcast was supposed to stay out of it, required by the Justice Department to be a perpetual silent partner after the cable company inherited a 32% stake in Hulu through its merger with NBC/Universal in 2011.

But a Wall Street Journal report late Tuesday suggested Comcast had far more involvement in critical Hulu business decisions than the Justice Department might have tolerated had it known. Earlier reports over the weekend suggested regulators were focusing on Comcast’s involvement in Hulu, concerned Comcast may have ignored a consent decree and interfered with the sale of Hulu to protect itself from increased competition.

At the time Comcast acquired NBC/Universal, the Justice Department was concerned the cable company would inherit NBC’s one-third interest in Hulu, a potential online video competitor that could eventually fuel cord-cutting. Comcast agreed to “relinquish any veto right or other right to influence, control, or participate in the governance or management of Hulu.” It also agreed to license Comcast/NBC-owned content to Comcast’s competitors on fair terms.

Despite Comcast’s commitment, people familiar with the matter told the Journal Comcast “felt hamstrung” by the conditions it agreed to in the consent decree. Although Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice insisted “Comcast has no role in making, evaluating or reconsidering any management decisions at Hulu,” Comcast executives in attendance at the Sun Valley meetup suggested Hulu was an important part of the cable industry’s future. The “silent partner” allegedly told Hulu’s fellow owners if they didn’t sell the venture, Comcast would make Hulu the nationwide streaming video platform for the industry’s “TV Everywhere” project, turning it into a potential major rival of Netflix.

Comcast acquired a 32% ownership interest in Hulu after buying NBC/Universal.

Comcast acquired a 32% ownership interest in Hulu after buying NBC/Universal.

According to sources who had knowledge of the matter, Comcast’s proposal, which would enlarge Hulu significantly almost overnight, influenced Disney and Fox to cancel the sale by the end of the week-long conference. At that point, two of the biggest bidders to acquire Hulu were Comcast rivals DirecTV and AT&T, both seeking to develop online video platforms that could compete with Comcast.

As news spread the Hulu sale was off, a piece in GigaOm made it clear Comcast came away the biggest winner, keeping a potential competing online cable TV video platform at bay:

Buying Hulu would have been more than just a TV Everywhere play for AT&T and DirecTV. It could have been the first step towards an online-based pay-TV subscription, with a solid consumer base, name recognition and proven technology.

Now none of this is going to happen — and Comcast couldn’t be happier about that.

Ultimately, Comcast wasn’t much better fulfilling promises to its Hulu partners than it has managed for its customers. Despite promising to market Hulu to millions of Comcast cable subscribers and integrating the service into Comcast’s own systems, discussions surrounding a formal agreement between the two went nowhere, bogged down by a deal-killing Comcast demand that any viewer accessing Hulu be redirected through Comcast’s own video player and platform, which conveniently provided the cable company with Hulu customer data and gave free exposure to Comcast’s brand. That would make pitching Hulu as an alternative to Comcast next to impossible.

After the threat of a sale was a distant memory, Comcast seemed to lose interest in Hulu, refocusing on its expensive X1 set-top box and XFINITY-branded streaming apps.

To this day, Comcast’s X1 still does not offer subscribers a Hulu app.

Comcast Refused to Allow St. Paul Man to Cancel Cable Service After His Home Burned to the Ground

Phillip Dampier April 13, 2015 Comcast/Xfinity, Consumer News 4 Comments
Ware's home was destroyed, but his cable service lived on. (Image: Pioneer Press)

Ware’s home was destroyed, but his cable service lived on. (Image: Pioneer Press)

A St. Paul, Minn. man lost his home and everything in it after a wind-driven fire destroyed two North End homes on April 1.

As Jimmy Ware (66) tried to put his life back together, his daughter argued with Comcast to turn off cable service at her father’s address.

It took more than ten days and many phone calls to get the cable company to finally turn Ware’s service off, but not until it had managed to irritate his daughter, who wanted to spend her time helping her father find a new home and get back on his feet without the benefit of fire insurance, which Ware lacked.

Jessica Schmidt ran into a Comcast bureaucratic roadblock with the first phone call. Comcast insisted on getting Ware’s account number, which disappeared along with everything else in the fire. Because Schmidt was not listed as an authorized point of contact in Comcast’s records, she made a three-way call with her father to bring him into the conversation. The Comcast representative asked for the last four digits of his Social Security number, but even that didn’t satisfy, and Comcast refused to stop billing Ware for service.

“I’ve said to Comcast, ‘Here’s your choice, disconnect the service or send someone out to fix the cable, because it’s not working,’ ” Schmidt said in a story reported by the Pioneer Press. “The (Comcast) guy said, ‘That doesn’t make sense, because the house burned down.’ I said, ‘Exactly, shut the service off.’ ”

comcastNo.

Four or five calls later, Schmidt heard back from Comcast’s corporate office who finally agreed to cancel service, backdated to April 1st. They also promised Ware would not be bothered a second time from collection efforts to pay for the cable equipment burned in the fire that would normally cost hundreds.

Comcast explained it initially refused to cancel Ware’s cable service for his protection.

“We understand that this is a difficult time for Mr. Ware and apologize for the inconvenience,” wrote Comcast spokeswoman Mary Beth Schubert in a statement. “Comcast has safeguards in place to protect the privacy of our customers, including not allowing unauthorized users to make changes to a customer’s account. We do provide the option for customers to designate others, such as family members, to make authorized account changes and verifying an account can normally be done either over the phone or in person with a driver’s license.”

Ware’s neighbors had a better experience skipping Comcast’s customer service hotline and visiting a local Comcast cable store instead. With a family member present, the Comcast representative was able to locate the customer’s account details and canceled service without issue.

Comcast Screw Up Forces Washington Man to Sell His New Home; Quoted Him $60,000 Installation Fee

Phillip Dampier March 25, 2015 Comcast/Xfinity, Competition, Consumer News, Data Caps, Public Policy & Gov't 4 Comments

MasterMap_Oct2012A Washington state man who just moved into his new home is now being forced to consider selling it to somebody else because Comcast repeatedly misled him about its ability to provide service.

Seth told his extensive story to The Consumerist, which detailed his repeated attempts to get Comcast broadband service after multiple missed or unfinished service appointments. More importantly, Seth is representative of many Americans who have been told broadband is a fiercely competitive industry, yet they cannot sign up for service at a reasonable price from any provider.

For Seth, having reliable broadband service is not just a convenience — it is essential if he wants to stay employed. Before even considering making an offer on his new home in Kitsap County, Seth did his homework verifying Comcast provided service in the neighborhood. Comcast repeatedly assured him it did, and one sales rep confirmed a former resident at the same address had Comcast service. Seth was satisfied, bought the home and called to get Comcast service installed. But when a Comcast crew arrived Jan. 31, they quickly discovered there was no cable line strung to Seth’s property. That isn’t typically a deal-breaker and the techs completed a “drop bury request” that would normally result in the arrival of a Comcast cable burial crew to bring service from a nearby utility pole. Not this time.

Comcast determined the same home that its own sales rep promised used to have Comcast service was now suddenly too far away from Comcast’s infrastructure. If it decided to offer Seth service, the company quoted an installation fee approaching $60,000.

Seth consulted the FCC’s Broadband Map which depicted Kitsap County a veritable paradise of competition, with at least 10 providers fighting for his business. But Seth quickly realized the FCC’s map was misleading and inaccurate.

comcast whoppersFour of his options were wireless carriers that don’t provide a strong signal to his home or charge obscenely high prices for usage capped Internet access. ViaSat was on the list promising up to 25Mbps, but ViaSat satellite customers can testify the actual speeds received are much slower, and do not reliably support the VPN access Seth required.

Neither Comcast or CenturyLink offer broadband service to Seth, despite the fact both told the FCC they did for the purpose of its map. StarTouch uses microwave signals to reach its customers, but not in Seth’s part of Kitsap County. It seems someone put up a large building in between StarTouch’s transmission facilities and Seth’s home, blocking the service for a significant part of the county.

XO Communications does provide reliable T1 service to businesses at speeds from 1.544Mbps – 6Mbps. The biggest downside is its cost — $600 a month. Finally, Seth’s only other alternative is a gigabit fiber network run by the Kitsap Public Utility District. But cable companies like Comcast effectively lobbied to guarantee those types of networks would never be a competitor by pushing for laws that forbid retail service to individual homes or businesses. In Washington, the law only allows the utility district to sell wholesale access to its network to companies like… Comcast.

In the end, Comcast decided it wasn’t interested in serving Seth even if he found the $60,000 to cover the installation fee. CenturyLink shrugged its shoulders over why it isn’t offering DSL in Seth’s neighborhood. Seth is preparing to put his home back on the market. It’s a perfect choice for Luddites everywhere.

The moral of the story?

  • Comcast is not always forthcoming and honest when signing up customers and led Seth through two months of missed appointments and misinformation;
  • The accuracy of the FCC’s broadband availability map is questionable.

Sorry, That Competing Online Video/Cord-Cutter Competitor is Dead in the Water When Usage Caps Arrive

Phillip Dampier March 18, 2015 Competition, Consumer News, Data Caps, Net Neutrality, Online Video, Public Policy & Gov't 2 Comments
Phillip "It isn't so dumb to own the pipes" Dampier

Phillip “It isn’t so dumb to own the pipes” Dampier

In 2006, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre thought his company was at a disadvantage being stuck with “dumb pipes” while Google, Yahoo! (remember them?) and Vonage couldn’t count their earnings fast enough. While AT&T sold consumers plain DSL service, content was king on Wall Street and Whitacre groused it was unfair for bandwidth hogs to use “the pipes for free.” That one statement was the equivalent of throwing a lit match on a hillside in Malibu Canyon and a predictable firestorm over Net Neutrality ensued.

Nine years later, Net Neutrality is now official FCC policy, although the sour grape-eating Republicans will continue to throw Congressional hissyfits along the way. While they rely on tissue-thin evidence to back their assertion the FCC secretly colluded with the Obama Administration to stick it to AT&T and demand its repeal, the future of Net Neutrality will more likely be decided in a courtroom a year or two from now.

Back in 2006 AT&T primarily sold DSL service and was looking for cash to finance its then emerging U-verse platform. AT&T planned to follow cable’s lead, devoting most of the available bandwidth on its fiber to the neighborhood network to cable television programming. Broadband speeds were limited to just under 25Mbps — even less if a large household had multiple television sets in use.

But as the Great Recession arrived and wages stagnated, the cost of what used to be a “must-have” service for most Americans increasingly began to exceed the household budget and the day finally arrived when cable companies started losing more television customers than they were adding. Even worse, cable programming costs continue to spiral upwards and no major cable company can increase cable television rates fast enough to support the usual profit margin the industry counted on.

What Whitacre failed to realize nine years earlier is that broadband providers did not simply own “dumb pipes.” AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner Cable, Charter and other providers actually occupy two gilded catbird seats, with AT&T and Verizon dominating the wireless Internet business and Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter dominating at-home viewing and wired broadband. Lawmakers who deregulated both industries predicted pitting AT&T against Comcast or Verizon against Time Warner Cable would create competition not seen since Coke vs. Pepsi. Consumers would benefit and world-class service would result.

Instead, Time Warner Cable now sells Verizon Wireless phone service. Verizon gave up on expanding its FiOS network and is selling off its DSL and FiOS business in pieces to focus on its best moneymaker, Verizon Wireless. Comcast in turn threw in the towel on any notion of offering competing cellular service and, in fact, sold its acquired wireless spectrum to Verizon.

PlayStation Vue's lineup

PlayStation Vue’s lineup

The best way to make money is to avoid price wars with your competitors and the evidence shows there is growing peace in America’s Telecom Valley. Comcast can now raise your broadband bill because, for most, Verizon FiOS isn’t an option. AT&T U-verse does not have to hurry speed upgrades to customers if Time Warner Cable delivers no better than 50/5Mbps service in large parts of its service area. Google Fiber remains a minor threat, only available in a handful of cities. AT&T distributed more copies of its press release touting U-verse Gigapower — its gigabit Internet offering — than there are customers qualified to sign up.

Notice that we’ve drifted away from talking about cable television programming. So has the industry, now increasingly dependent on broadband rate increases to make up the difference in revenue they used to take home from their television packages.

But now that the biggest players have a predictable source of revenue, allowing disruptors to further challenge earnings isn’t something your local cable and phone company will allow for long. At the moment, those most likely to cause problems are the growing number of “over the top” streaming video services that do not require a cable television subscription to watch. But they do need broadband — Whitacre’s “dumb pipes” — to reach subscribers. To manage that, services like Apple, PlayStation Vue and Sling TV and their customers must deal with the gatekeepers — AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and others.

What Whitacre thought was a disadvantage is now becoming the best thing in the world — manning a toll booth on the only two roads most Americans can use to access online content.

Today, Sony officially launched its Internet-TV service, “PlayStation Vue” in three cities (New York, Chicago and Philadelphia) with a base price of $49.99/month. In includes more than 50 cable networks and in the three launch cities — local network affiliates. In Chicago and Philadelphia, where Comcast provides cable service, potential customers will need to pay $50 a month for Vue and another $64.95 a month for 50Mbps broadband — the least expensive broadband-only tier that is suitable for high quality viewing. Your combined bill for both services is $114.94 a month. Comcast charges $99.99 a month for its double play – 220 TV channels and 50Mbps broadband — almost $15 a month less for its package, and it includes around 150 more channels than Vue.

Comcast explans its new usage caps.

Comcast explains its new usage caps.

But Comcast also has another weapon it is testing is several of its markets — the resumption of usage caps and overlimit fees on its broadband service. Comcast customers in most test markets are given 300GB a month, after which they face overlimit fees of $10 for each additional increment of 50GB. While web browsing and e-mail fit more than comfortably within those caps, watching HD video may not. That leaves a potential Vue customer with a major dilemma. Should they pay $15 a month more for service than they can pay Comcast for a better package -and- chew away their usage allowance using it?

Comcast has yet to figure out how to install a coin collector on top of your television set, so you can watch as much Comcast cable television as you’d like. But watching streaming video could get very expensive if it exceeds a future Comcast usage allowance.

Smaller video packages from providers like Sling TV or the forthcoming Apple streaming service might make more sense, but will still be subject to Comcast’s usage caps if/when they are reintroduced around the country, while Comcast’s own television service will not.

This is why cable and phone companies hold enormous power over their potential competitors, even if Net Neutrality is fiercely enforced. Usage caps and usage-based billing represent an end run around Net Neutrality and both are permitted. The FCC has consistently refused to engage on the issue of broadband usage caps, leaving providers with a useful weapon to deter customers from dropping their television package in favor of an online alternative.

With most Americans having a choice of only one or two “dumb pipes” over which they can reach these services, being an owner of those pipes and getting to set the rates and conditions to use them is a very comfortable (and profitable) place to be.

Philadelphia Daily News Columnist Helps Beleaguered Comcast Customers by Calling CEO’s Mom

Phillip Dampier February 10, 2015 Comcast/Xfinity, Consumer News, Editorial & Site News, Public Policy & Gov't Comments Off on Philadelphia Daily News Columnist Helps Beleaguered Comcast Customers by Calling CEO’s Mom
momcast

Image from the Philadelphia Daily News

Comcast customers in Philadelphia, home to Comcast’s world headquarters, get no better treatment from the cable company than anyone else. But customers in the city of Brotherly Love now at least have a small edge on the rest of America.

A Philadelphia Daily News columnist just so happens to have the direct phone number of Comcast CEO’s 92-year old mom and is willing to use it.

“I grew up in a neighborhood where even the really bad kids could be brought back in line when someone tattled on them to their moms,” wrote columnist Ronnie Polaneczky. “That’s why I picked up the phone and called the 92-year-old mother of Comcast Corporation’s chairman and CEO Brian Roberts. We all know that Roberts’ company has been very, very bad. Comcast is in the news every other day with another irate customer’s tale of horrible treatment from the behemoth cable provider.”

Polaneczky decided to use the nuclear option after reading an email sent by Diana and Jason Airoldi, recent Philly transplants from Washington, D.C. The Airoldi’s had an appointment with Comcast to install service Dec. 23. It was now Feb. 1 and after multiple broken promises they were still waiting.

“In almost the same amount of time it took Noah to float the Ark, the country’s biggest cable company and home Internet-service provider hasn’t been able to turn on the Internet and cable in the Airoldis humble South Street apartment,” the columnist noted.

But they were by no means alone. There were also sad stories from:

  • Sandy and Charles Arnold, who have tried since Dec. 14 to get Comcast cable and Internet at their Ocean City home;
  • Bridie Gallagher, a senior citizen who has tried for months to get the overcharge on her bill fixed;
  • And Christine Yelovich, whose odyssey into the Comcast’s multiple circles of service hell should only be told with a horror-movie soundtrack playing behind it.

Answer: Call Mama

Suzanne Roberts, the 92-year old mother of Brian, accomplished more for the Airoldi family in one day than the entire Comcast juggernaut could manage in more than a month. By day’s end, the Comcast trucks descended on the neighborhood and the family was finally connected.

Unfortunately, Comcast does not offer 1-800-SUZANNE for beleaguered customers, who have developed a seething dislike for the cable company. One horror story after another, accompanied by news of PR disasters that routinely spread across the country faster than measles all testify to Comcast’s bottom of the barrel customer ranking as among the most hated companies in America.

comcast service cartoonEven PR damage control marketing experts now consider Comcast hopeless.

“The stories that come out about them are just unbelievable in terms of the torture – not just bad service, but torture – they inflict on customers,” said Chris Malone, managing partner of Fidelum Partners in Newtown Square, a specialist in fixing the reputations of companies that shoot themselves in the proverbial foot. “I feel quite confident that if their services were offered more broadly, their ranking would be much lower.”

Malone told Polaneczky the reason more Americans hate Comcast than BP — the company that threatened the Gulf of Mexico’s entire ecosystem after recklessly allowing more than 200 million gallons of oil to spill and stain the beaches from Louisiana to Florida — is the cable company’s relentless greed.

‘At the root of Comcast’s problem,’ Malone says, is that ‘the company is focused on maximizing financial benefits at the expense of its customers and employees,’ who know that “the company does not have their best interests in mind.”

Even Comcast’s new customer service czar, Charlie Herrin — head of “customer experience,” hired to “ensure that we are delighting our customers at each touch point,” has waved the white flag, seemingly admitting the company is an unmitigated mess.

Despite annual commitments from Comcast management starting in 2007 that Comcast was “redoubling” its efforts at improving customer service, the pesky fact that twice nothing is still nothing left Herrin sheepishly lowering expectations:

“In fact,” Herrin said, “it may take a few years before we can honestly say that a great customer experience is something we’re known for.”

A few years?

polaneczky1

Polaneczky

These facts should be penetrating the offices of every state and federal regulator contemplating the public interest benefits of approving a merger deal between Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Sweeping aside the Comcast-ghostwritten letters non-profit, civil rights, and political groups have sent to regulators (while running to the bank to cash Comcast’s checks), the columnist for the Daily News is scratching his head pondering why anyone would even think of letting the bad become bigger to get even worse.

“If Comcast is badly serving so many customers now, why should it be allowed the opportunity to badly serve millions more?,” she asked. “After my column ran, I got a call from Jeff Alexander, the regional spokesman for Comcast’s local operations. He apologized for what had happened to the Airoldis and invited me to visit some of Comcast’s shiny new retail stores, where customers can pay bills, return cable boxes and such. ‘Sure,’ I said, to be agreeable. But honestly, who cares?”

The most useful thing Polaneczky got from Alexander was his direct e-mail address with an invitation to forward complaints to his personal attention to resolve. So why not use it?

“Email me ([email protected]) about your Comcast problems,” Polaneczky wrote. “Detail the ways the company has been torturing you, and I will pass your stories along to Alexander, who seems like a very nice man. I can’t guarantee results. Lord knows your complaints have been cheerfully heard then ignored before. But I can promise that if Alexander doesn’t resolve your problems, I’m calling Mama Roberts again. I have her number on speed-dial.”

Perhaps Mama should come out of retirement and take on the job Perrin seems be ready to quit. It probably wouldn’t take “years” to see improvements if the CEO’s mom carried a big stick around Comcast’s Philadelphia headquarters. She should start in her son’s executive suite.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Links:

Stop the Cap!