Comcast - fixed, I think.

It's only fair that I close out the whole overbilling thing with a final report... I've got a bill in hand that shows that I got reimbursed enough to more than cover an entire month of charges, and that my ongoing charge for Internet access has been reduced. I've also been told that my cable modem is no longer marked as Comcast-owned... and I believe them, based on the fact that I had to reset my connection (and go through all the initial setup steps again) in order to receive that news by email. Apart from that minor glitch, it was well worth pursuing this problem with the Comcast Cares team... and I heartily recommend that, if you're using Comcast and have a problem with their service that normal channels cant handle, that you give them a shot. Of course, best good would be for their mainline tech support to improve to the point where a separate, special trouble-shooting team isn't necessary... but it's good they're there in the meantime.

Begun, the Net Neutrality Wars have

Wow... it's practically lightspeed for any branch of FedGov to move this fast. It's only been since July last year, when Comcast and the FCC got hot and bothered about what "reasonable" means, in a network-management sense, that I've been waiting for movement on the whole Net Neutrality issue... and Monday, it came, with the chairman of the FCC announcing the start of a process to enshrine in regulation the core tenets of NN, then going a step beyond and saying that he wants the new rules to apply to all Internet connections, including wireless phones.

Of course, it didn't take long for members of the Republican party to try and throw a spanner in the works. Their first attempt is to try to amend a bill in such a way as to make the FCC unable to spend any money on implementing these consumer protections (link). The ever-popular "tread lightly when it comes to new regulations" is quickly followed by "could stifle investment incentives", as put forth by one of the senators involved.

OK, now here's a fine example of why I am not a Republican (for the record, I'm not a Democrat either). I truly believe that companies providing a service have every right to price their service according to demand and the cost of that service. Where I differ from these Republicans is that I don't believe that service providers should be allowed to "water down" their offerings (without informed consent, at least) for users that abide by the rules of the service, in the name of protecting said users from those that break the rules. Neither do I believe that companies should be allowed to secretly interfere with the service they provide, especially when they do it to prop up other divisions of their company (VoIP and Internet video, to use Comcast as an example), in the name of safeguarding investments. If you want to invest in the current market leaders as a "safe" investment, great... if you want to invest in the Next Big Thing, hoping to make a killing, good on you. However, just because you're an investor, you have no right to assume that both investments are with the same company... or, if they are, that the investments in the future will allow for anything more than the continued survival of your cash cow.

Right, just a bit off-track there... let's see, wireless companies, of course, are also up-in-arms, complaining that open access rules will swamp their networks. I don't know first-hand, but I hear that's already pretty true for AT&T with the iPhone in some areas... but it's also a pretty moot point. We're back to that whole cost/demand equation (and side note: I'm sure texting is still insanely out of line with that concept)... if you have so many people using your service that you can't keep up, raise the price and invest (if possible) in improving your infrastructure. Will that mean that you lose some customers? Sure... but they will bog down your competitors, if they are still offering lower rates. Unless, of course, you're worried that your competitors will do the right thing, upgrade their infrastructure, and leave you in the dust... that's not your concern, right?

Wow, off-track and mildly combative, all in one post... OK, quick summary and finish. If you're offering Internet access, it's right that you be held to offering the whole Internet, unless you tell us in advance what you're not offering, and why. Companies have failed that test in the past, which is why regulation is needed (and please, no "it's just a few bad apples", you want to control problems before they become widespread, or worse, ingrained). If you can't operate under those conditions, be afraid... even if this change doesn't make it through FedGov this time, technology is changing ever faster, and your service will become obsolete someday soon. Whether you survive depends greatly on your ability to keep pace while keeping your customers content... and there's a whole new generation of tech-savvy types out there, waiting for you to disappoint them.

Comcast update

So, in case any of you were wondering, and since I don't have much else relevant to blog about this week, here's where the whole cable-modem thing sits right now: I did get a reply the very same night I posted my last entry, which was unexpected. The next day, we got down to the meat of the issue, verifying serial numbers, MAC addresses and the like... and I've been credited (so I'm told) the $3/month charge for the period I was charged up to this point, and should continue being credited for as long as necessary (expecting "a couple of weeks") while they update their inventory records to reflect that I actually do own my modem. I suspect that time frame includes looking for any physical evidence at the local office that I don't own the modem, but that's understandable enough.

What's not-so-understandable is that their chat technician got confused about when I started getting charged this rental fee... it wasn't March of last year, it was 28JUN08, which, if you look at the history of this blog, was just after I turned in my TV equipment. It was probably just an error on the part of some data entry critter... probably. At any rate, now it's just a little limbo-time while the wheels of bureaucracy grind away, if things go the way they should. If not, I'll be sure to rant some more another day! :)

From out of the blue, a Comcast rep!

I've heard of this sort of thing, but never seen it first hand... if you check the comments section of my prior post, there's a comment from a "ComcastCares1", offering expedited assistance. Being the cautious sort that I am, I checked the profile view (it's been around since Feb. '08) and sniffed around the edges of the proposal for potential scamminess... but I don't see any likely attack vector there. So, I've given it a shot... stay tuned for further developments!

Sneaky little bastards, Comcast are...

So, happy Labor Day, first off... what better day to deal with Comcast's "24/7" chat support service?

Not that dealing with that service should have been necessary... a little over a year back, I grumbled about Comcast billing me for cable TV service when their own bill showed that I wasn't signed up for it, a fight I won. Little did I suspect that, buried in the price for Internet service, was a line item for "modem rental"... which, considering I have always owned my own modem, is more than a bit odd.

No worries though, a quick email to their support people should put that right, right? I mean, fill out their form, tell them who I am, what the problem is, and their people will look into it and either fix it straight away, or let me know why they think I'm wrong, right? No such luck... two days later, I get emailed back (to paraphrase), "Oh, you've got a billing problem? Well, you'll need to use our live chat system to get that fixed."

So I do the chat, where I'm informed that they've been charging that fee on my account since last March (yes, I'm sorry I didn't notice it, since your online billing service doesn't provide a full breakout of charges unless you download a .pdf of what your paper bill would look like), and am I sure that I really own the modem I'm using (which I still have the flippin' retail box for, so yes). Of course, the chat rep can't do anything about it, but has to kick a ticket upstairs for review, so they'll get back to me on it. Honest.

Oh, how I wish I had another viable option to jump ship to right now. Unfortunately, DSL in my neighborhood is still stuck at (theoretically) 1.5Mbps, which might be fast enough for my needs, if theory and reality were well-aligned (but, knowing the phone system here, they certainly aren't). Oh well, grit those teeth and bear it a while longer, I suppose... although I may have to look at wireless options before terribly long.

Note on the window

Work let us all leave early yesterday, so I drove downtown to check out Ponyo (fun, innocent film... maybe I'll blog it properly later) and Pig Out in the Park (disappointing variety/quality of food offerings this year). I went ahead and parked in the River Park Square parking garage, since the movie validation would affray the cost a bit... and parked a bit to the right of center in the space I found (since the van to the left had done the same), but still well within the lines. That's one of the little joys of driving a Yaris, because they are in no way a Large Car.

Once I was done, I came back to the car, only to find a note on the window, which read "Thank you for parking so close :) I love climbing over the passenger side to get tiny my car :)". Now, admittedly, I hadn't paid much attention to the car to my right, beyond making sure it wasn't over the line marker for the space I was getting into... but neither should that be necessary, that being the purpose of those space marking lines being painted on the ground in the first place. So, in effect, the lady in question (judging mainly by the handwriting and tone of the note) was attempting to make me feel bad for daring to occupy the parking space to the left of her car. Of course, being the sort that I am, it had the exact opposite effect, making me happy to have inconvenienced such a self-centered person sufficiently to compel them write their note for me.

There's still the chance, certainly, that I'm being more of an ass than usual, so let me know what you think... was there some unwritten rule of etiquette that I violated, or was climbing over the passenger seat a small price to pay for the other driver's lack of planning?