Email Ownership

I've written previously about ISP-provided email addresses and how risky they are. To recap, you're at the mercy of your ISP when you use an address such as don@comcast.net or don@verizon.net. Numerous people at broadbandreports.com have reported problems with their Comcast email. The only common factor seems to be that Comcast's system is too complex. Because your email address is tied to your account which is tied to every other service Comcast offers, people have found their emails locked due to anything from late payments to installation of phone service.

Previously, I mentioned another concern: Switch providers and you must leave your address behind. Few ISPs providers let you keep your address or offer to forward your email.

As if to prove me wrong, one of my friends found himself in this very situation when he switched from Comcast to Verizon a year ago. He had long been using a comcast.net address, had given it out to many people, and had subscribed to various mailing lists with it. And he figured the address would stop working when he left Comcast.

But the comcast.net address continued working. So he continued using it.

Curiously, Comcast didn't turn it off or ask for it back. Until...

About a year later, he decided he didn't like Verizon and wanted to go back to Comcast. Even I couldn't have guessed what would happen next: As soon as he opened a new account with Comcast, his old Comcast email address stopped working!

After calls to the local office proved unhelpful, he called Comcast's corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, each time being referred to an Executive Response Team member who would vow to fix the problem. After weeks of getting nowhere, he tracked down a technician who seemed to understand - but lacked the immediate access to make the needed changes. But enough badgering and finally someone got through and my friend got his email account back. It only took my friend hours of time on the phone spread over 60 days - for a fix that shouldn't have taken more than 10 minutes.

You may want to put that in the "just asking for trouble" category. After all, my friend did continue using a Comcast service (an email address) despite no longer being a customer. But I think you're at significant risk even if you are a Comcast customer in good standing. Case in point: A poster (userid: baffled) on dslreports.com described that an email address he had used for 4 1/2 years recently stopped working. When he called, Comcast told him that that another customer with the same name in Texas closed his Comcast account and the email address was "owned" by the Texan. (Clearly Comcast's idea of "ownership" is pretty weak if you can "own" it one day and "not own" it the next.) Anyway, since Mr. Texas was the "legal owner" of the email address, Comcast said there was nothing they could do.

In addition, baffled found that his sub-account email addresses were inoperative as well including one that he used as a business address. Fortunately, Comcast was able to resolve his problem in just 24 hours. It was just an accident! Our bad!

Ultimately, he got his accounts back along with his emails. But I would've bet against it. It is apparent from these and other stories that Comcast is not concerned with the way they handle email addresses.

If anyone can show me an ISP that provides any kind of guarantees on their mail service, I'd love to see it. Until then, I restate my earlier advice: Using ISP-provided email addresses is just too risky. And using them for business is insane.

Can We Call

Is it too much to hope that I could get through a year without loss of service? Made it to February anyway. I guess that's something.

Thursday, Feb 20, 2009

I woke to find my internet service wasn't working. I confirmed it wasn't my equipment. The lights on the cable modem acknowledged the problem to be at the modem or beyond it. So I called Comcast.

Ricardo answered. I explained the problem and said it showed the same symptoms as the previous outage I had back in July. I mentioned this because the tech who visited me then promised that someone would come back and complete the fix or else the problem would recur.

Me: (paraphrase) That was in July. And no one ever came back.
Ricardo: (paraphrase) According to my records, someone did come out and fix it.
Me: They may have fixed something but it wasn't the right thing. The splitter on the pole wasn't touched and it was supposed to be removed. Could you send someone who can do the right job?
Ricardo: I can give you an appointment for a technician to come to your home on Saturday between 8-11am.
Me: Thank you.
Ricardo: Do you have a phone number for the technician to call before he comes over?
Me: I have VOIP, so without internet service, he won't be able to reach me.
Ricardo: How about a cell phone number?
Me: Cell service is unreliable. Just have the tech come without calling. I'll be here.
Ricardo: Ok, I'll write that on the ticket. He'll come without calling. But I have to warn you that if he's running late, he'll have no way to contact you.
Me: I understand.

Here's a picture of the splitter in question - installed by Comcast.


Friday

Late Friday, I found the internet connection was active. But I still wanted the tech to come out and fix the connectors so I looked forward to Saturday morning.

Saturday

8-11am. No one showed. When 11am came, I assumed the tech was running late so I didn't worry.

At 3pm, I figured there's no way a tech could be running this far behind but I had to leave the house to run an errand so I called Comcast just to make sure the tech wouldn't waste his time trying to visit me even this late.

Me: It's 3pm. What happened to the technician?
Anika: The appointment was cancelled because there was no phone number to call.
Me: Are you sure? I specifically told Ricardo that I had no working phone and just to come over. Ricardo said he was writing down that there was no phone and the tech should come over without calling. Are you sure there are no notes to that effect?
Anika: There is no such note.

Me: Can we get Ricardo on the phone? Let's clear this up right now.
Anika: Ok, just tell me his extension.
Me: You want me to tell you his extension?
Anika: Yes, that's the only way I can get in touch with other people here.
Me: He gave me his name. That's not enough?
Anika: The call center is very large, sir. I cannot do anything with just his name.
Me: Can I speak to a supervisor? I'd like to formally complain about Ricardo or find out what's going on.
Anika: There are no supervisors here on Saturday. Call back during the week.

Anika offered to credit me $20 for the missed appointment and offered to reschedule the appointment.

Anika: Can I reschedule you now? I might be able to send someone there later today.
Me: No thank you. I can't wait here any longer.

We ended the phone call and I left the house at that point.

7pm. I returned later that evening and found a note from a Comcast technician on my front door. The technician noted that the "Scheduled Work Date and Time" for the job was 2-5pm. He noted that he arrived at 4:38pm.

A couple of observations can be drawn from this episode. The first is that either someone is lying or Comcast's system for taking notes isn't working. In fact, this isn't the first time I've encountered this problem.

Second, there's no explanation for how a technician would summarily cancel an appointment on his own. Just because there's no phone number isn't a useful reason. (Even a non-answering number isn't a good reason as I explained in a previous posting.)

Third, there's no explanation for the 2-5pm appointment. Where did it come from? It couldn't have been Anika because I told her I couldn't wait at the house any longer. I specifically told her not to send a technician later in the day. Could the technician just have decided on his own? Without even contacting the customer? What kind of communication is there between the people answering the phone and the techs in the field? Or rather why is it so bad? Here's a more detailed reminder.

Lastly, I have now learned that just because a Comcast representative gives me a name, I should also ask for a phone number. I've never heard of this nonsense before but ok, I'll play along if that's what it takes.

I will file a formal complaint with Montgomery County. Not only is something seriously broken with Comcast's customer support but my connection is still problematic - and it's been this way for 8 months.

Transparency Not Either

I recently described a state bill to create a website that would enable the public to see MCPS purchases - and my testimony at Annapolis requesting to remove the $10K threshold. To recap, the legislators didn't seem interested in the removal idea. I have since found out that they did exactly the opposite! Yes, they raised the threshold to $25K.

My only thought: We must vote these people out of office at the next opportunity. Let me know if you have better suggestions.

Montgomery County's Turn

Now Montgomery County is considering a similar bill for county purchases, Council Bill 1-09. Curiously, it has the same problem - the bill only requires transparency for purchases $25K or higher. What is with these people that they cannot think of amounts less than $25K?

The county council is scheduled to take action on this bill next week (Feb 24 2009) so you still have several days to weigh in. I submitted essentially the same letter that I did to the state but this time focusing more clearly on the limit, even going so far as to put my thrust in the subtitle in English that even a 5th grader would understand. Here it is:

Comments On Bill 1-09 Finance - Spending Disclosure

Summary: Good bill but would be better if the $25,000 limit was removed.

Don Libes
February 5, 2009
I strongly support the intent of Bill 1-09 - to provide transparency of county purchases. But while thousand dollar purchases need disclosure, so do smaller ones. Many inappropriate purchases are less than a thousand dollars or even a hundred dollars - exorbitant lunches and gifts, unjustifiable travel, and so on. Limits, whether $25,000 or $10,000, are easy to avoid. It’s not hard to break up a million-dollar purchase of electronic whiteboards or computers in to groups of purchases that fall below the limit. It requires little effort to do - a few more clicks of the mouse.

So pass the bill but without dollar limits and without qualifying words such as “aggregate” that could delay disclosure. Rather, the website should report any purchase that the county tracks using its existing financial management system. The cost of this change would be negligible given that the purchases are already in an existing database. And disk space is cheap. $100 buys enough space to hold decades worth of purchase information.

We should take a cue from our new president. On his first day of office, President Obama issued a memorandum indicating that, unless there is a justifiable reason to withhold information, records must be public by default. If there is a justifiable reason for the $25K limit, I have yet to hear it. Disclosure should not have to wait for specific requests from the public.

I close with the following words from Obama's memorandum. Accountability is in the interest of the government as well as the citizenry. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

Transparency? Not.

Transparency is sweeping the land. Or is it?

The federal government has established a website to let you see what the government is spending your money on (www.USASpending.gov) and Maryland has created a similar spending website for state purchases (www.spending.dbm.maryland.gov).

Council Bill 1-09 has been drafted to create a similar website at the county level, sponsored by Councilmembers Andrews and Berliner.

Unfortunately, the school system (MCPS) has fallen through the cracks. County lawyers assert that MCPS does not have to yield its data to the state or the country websites. So another bill has been drafted to force the creation of a website specifically for MCPS. This bill is MC 930-09, sponsored by Delegate Alfred Carr. (Carr's connection to telecomm issues? He succeeded Jane Lawton, the past MC Cable Administrator whose untimely passing left the seat available. Carr's previous job? A manager at Verizon!)

Unfortunately, all of these bills share one common problem. The reporting levels are too high. The state website and proposed county website only require reporting of purchases $25K or higher. Carr's MCPS bill has a level of $10K or higher.

I believe the level should be much less. The bill's author explained to me that the $10K limit was simply chosen as a reflection of the smaller budget of MCPS compared to the state. The state's $25K limit was based on a figure used to require additional signatures during purchasing. But just because purchases require less oversight doesn't mean they shouldn't be public. To the contrary, the smallest purchases are made with the least oversight. Obviously, they need public disclosure as much as big purchases, just for a different reason.

And it should be easy extend the proposed website to smaller purchases. (How hard is it to remove the limit from an SQL query? Sigh.) And what would it cost? At 1TB for $100, we could fit the entire MCPS purchase history on a single disk. It is my understanding that the data is already tracked internally by MCPS in a single database. Periodic copies to an external mirror should be trivial. And since the website would be read-only, security risks are minimal.

With that in mind, I encourage you to contact your county councilmembers and state delegates and request that they lower the dollar limits on these bills.

Here is the text of my own testimony that I presented at Annapolis at a public hearing on the measure. (Yes, it is short! Individuals are limited to two minutes.)

Testimony on MC 930-09
Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
Don Libes
January 30, 2009

My name is Don Libes. I’m representing myself, a typical taxpayer and parent with a child in public school. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on this legislation.

I strongly support its intent - to provide transparency in the purchases by my public school system. I have been repeatedly dismayed at purchases that surely would not have occurred had the purchasers known that the public would immediately see such inappropriate expenditures.

But many inappropriate purchases are less than a thousand dollars or even a hundred dollars - exorbitant lunches and gifts, unjustifiable travel, and so on. Such limits, whether $10,000 or $25,000, are easy to avoid. It’s not hard to break up a million-dollar purchase of electronic whiteboards or computers in to individual purchases that fall below the limit. It requires little
effort to do - a few more clicks of the mouse.

So pass the bill but without limits and without qualifying words such as "aggregate" that could delay disclosure. The cost of this project is negligible given that the purchases are already in an existing database. And to remove the $10,000 limit requires no additional labor costs.

We should take a cue from our new president. On his first day of office, President Obama issued a memorandum indicating that, unless there is a justifiable reason to withhold information, records must be public by default. Disclosure should not have to wait for specific requests from the public.

I close with the following words from Obama's memorandum. Accountability is in the interest of the government as well as the citizenry. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."

Lest this sound like it ought to have been enough, it wasn't. After delivering my testimony to the MC Delegation, they continued discussion of the merits of the bill with the limit at $10K. Not a single delegate supported lowering the limit.

Two other citizens testified as well. Louis Willen (testimony), representing the Parents Coalition, addressed the technical merits of the website and explained why it would cost much less than MCPS claims. More like $5K. As I mentioned, MCPS already has the data collected. It's just a matter of regularly copying it to a public repository with a query page exposed to the public. However MCPS started out saying that it would cost $200K and then lowered its estimate to "$40 to 50K". But it is apparent that they haven't done their homework and have no real idea of what's involved.

Janis Sartucci also testified, providing real-world examples of purchases that needed the kind of public airing such a website would provide. It's my understanding that when Janis has asked MCPS for data in the past, data that should be public in the first place, MCPS has told her that she must pay the cost of MCPS preparing the data for release. This is an idea right out of the dark ages.

In the end, it may not matter much anyway. MCPS doesn't want to build it unless they are specifically offered new money. And the delegates are unlikely to give the county money for the purpose, instead just saying build it on your own. So if the bill passes without money attached, it's a useless result.

Delegate Carr pointed out that MCPS should be happy to pay for it themselves. After all, it's likely that disclosure of MCPS purchases to the public would ultimately result in thousands of dollars of savings. And it would also reduce the cost of responding to information requests by parents for the purchasing data. Currently, it's all done manually. A parent makes a request and some MCPS staffer has to track down the data, explain how much it will cost to print it, send the estimate back to the parent (or deny the data exists), handle the reply (likely an argument), and so on.

Bottom line: The bill is unlikely to have a useful impact even if passed. But with some simple changes, it has a future. However, the delegates and MCPS need to hear this from the voters.

Final note: As the hearing began, the delegate chair noticed two people operating a professional videocamera. Delegate Brian Feldman, chair of the delegates, asked whether the people were recording audio and video or just taking still photos. After establishing that they were indeed recording both video and audio, the chair insisted they stop recording. None of the other delegates protested again the sad irony - that their own process of making transparency law itself would not be transparent to the public.

Your Mission, Should You Decide To Accept It

Interested in serving on the county's Cable and Communications Advisory Committee? The CCAC has four vacancies. Here is the
official announcement.

I've described the committee many times in the past but here is a link to perhaps the most in-depth description. I wrote it several years ago so it's no longer entirely accurate but it's still pretty close.

Here is a link to the current members of the committee. These are your representatives. Feel free to contact them to ask what their experience serving on the committee is like. Or ask them about communication-related issues of concern to you. Oh, you can't figure out how to contact them? Their names aren't linked to an email address? There's no phone number? How about that!

You're got your first task then: Get on the committee and set about making the members more accessible to the citizens who they are supposed to represent!

Adventures in Billing

Followup to last week's report on the Film Fest aka My Latest Comcastic Adventure: Looking at my statement, I found that Comcast credited me $36 for the incident. But I had expected a credit of $47.86, composed of two $20 credits for the two failures of technicians to arrive within the promised windows and then another $7.86 for the pro-rated outage. The billing department representative said there was no explanation for the $36 in the notes. (How many times have I heard this?)

I asked if she could correct the credit but the billing representative could not get her head around the issue. "The tech didn't come to your house because he called but no one answered, so no one was home, so it's your fault no one showed." It didn't matter to her that my phone service didn't work so there was no way that technician could've called me. Nor did it matter that I had made sure the original service request included that my phone service didn't work and I had specifically instructed the tech not to call before coming. "There is no explanation in the notes of that, sir."

After a half hour on the phone, she gave up trying to understand and just gave me another $40 credit. I asked her if she could remove the $36 credit (now an over-credit) and lower it to $7.86 but she said, sorry no, "I cannot remove the credit."

I also discovered that Comcast put me on a different plan. The new plan lowered my monthly internet fee from $57.95 to $33.00 for 12 months. But I found this out only when I saw my statement, whereupon I immediately called Comcast to find out the details of the plan that had a 57% cut in price. Would there be a corresponding cut in speed? At first, the Comcast rep insisted my bill was wrong and there was no such plan was available. However, after some research, he came back on the phone and sheepishly admitted that, yes indeed, my plan existed and what's more, it had a higher speed than I was getting before at $57.95.

So was I overpaying before, I asked. Without directly answering my question, he explained that the $33 plan is usually only provided by the marketing department or the retention department.

Retention

I've been through this before. The retention department, like other parts of Comcast, appears to be unreliable. They get involved when you call to cancel your service. Sometimes Comcast will ask why you're cancelling. Sometimes they won't. If they do ask, presumably the answer is that you're switching to Verizon for faster, cheaper, and more reliable service.

But, cheapskate that I am, I have stuck with Comcast due to their willingness to compete with Verizon purely on the basis of the price. I would really appreciate competition on speed and reliability too but I guess that's too much to ask for. And, clearly in my case, reliability - or lack thereof - doesn't seem to be a showstopper. I must enjoy being mistreated or having an unreliable connection. Why else would I stay? Laziness? Masochism?

In contrast, my neighbors have switched to Verizon. My community surveyed everyone last year and again this year - everyone who responded asserted they had switched. If there are any Comcast subscribers left in the neighborhood besides me, I'm not aware of them.

One neighbor did complain about problems with Verizon's billing, a problem I have seen with regularity at broadbandreports.com. But Comcast's billing department has a history of problems too and, if my experience is any indicator, it appears as if nothing has changed.

One more thing that hasn't changed: The telephone pole in front of my house still has that malignant splitter in my connection, more than a month after Comcast promised it would be removed.

Comcast Film Fest

The Comcast Film Fest started this weekend and runs through August 24, 2008. I am not going this year although I have in the past. It's quite enjoyable as long as too many people don't show up. Otherwise it can be a mob scene. (Avoid Friday and Saturday!)

I also wouldn't recommend going to a movie at the Fest unless you've seen that particular movie before. The sound is just a bit too iffy. But the atmosphere is nice. Seeing a movie under the stars with family and friends is quite pleasant.

The festival is also a benefit for the NIH - a worthy cause. But why should Comcast donate a portion of their customer's payments to charity? Wouldn't it make more sense to just lower the rates - and let their customers decide for themselves, to whom and how much to donate? By Comcast making the decision to donate, customers not only lose the decision-making power but customers lose the credit as well. That's just wrong.

Personally, I want to donate a portion of my income; but here Comcast is using my hard-earned money to send two messages: 1) they don't need the money and 2) they care. I don't believe either is true. Don't get me wrong - I believe the employees themselves care; but the company? It's a business answerable to shareholders. And like the customers, the shareholders themselves are perfectly capable of donating themselves.

As for whether Comcast needs the money they are donating, that's a more difficult question. But the impression I get is that they might benefit by spending more money in hopes of improving their service. After all, Comcast continues to have one of the worst reputations in the industry.

As if to drive the point home, my service went out recently. It began on a Thursday. The Comcast representative asked if I could be home on Sunday from 2-5pm. "Yes, but I'm pretty sure I need an outdoor technician, not an indoor tech. Can you please send someone who can climb the pole?"

"No, we need to send an indoor tech first. If he determines an outdoor tech is needed, we'll schedule one at that time." I explained in detail why I felt it was likely outside but the rep insisted I be scheduled for an indoor tech and that I had to be home.

Sunday 2-5pm - You can probably already guess - the technician didn't show.

At 5:05pm, I called Comcast. The message I heard was (paraphrase) "We're sorry but the office is closed. Please call back during business hours." Turns out their business hours end at 5! Grrr.

At that point, I called Comcast's national support number. (It's not advertised for local use but I use it as a backup for situations like this.) The rep who answered put me on hold while he checked why no one showed. Finally, I heard: "Dispatch cannot get a hold of him. He's probably running late; just wait another hour." I waited two more hours and then called again. "He was there - twice - and found no one home." The tech obviously never visited my house - I had my car in the driveway and garage doors wide open the entire time. The Comcast representative on the phone with me said "I don't believe him either."

So he rescheduled me for two days later. He also recommended I call Monday and said that Comcast holds back a few appointments for emergencies or gets same-day appointments as people cancel. I called on Monday - no appointments.

I asked if I could pick up a replacement modem just to confirm that it wasn't a modem issue. So on my way home from work, I stopped by the local office and swapped modems. I asked if the new modem has been tested. "Yes." Do I have to call you once I plug it in? "Sir, it will work. Just take it home and plug it in."

Plugged in directly to where the line entered my house, the new modem didn't work, confirming to myself that it was an outside problem.

On Tuesday, I waited during my 11-2pm time slot. At 1pm, I decided I'd better make sure the tech was coming and so I called Comcast. "We can't reach the technician but I'm sure he'll show." I explained that he didn't show the last time so I'd like some confirmation. I didn't get it.

Tuesday 2:00pm - At the end of the time slot, I called Comcast. "We cannot reach the technician - just give him another hour and a half." Huh? The rep gave me her extension so I could call her back directly if necessary and then assured me she'll be on duty until 6pm.

Tuesday 3:30pm - The tech still hadn't shown but I saw the modem go online. No connectivity however. I called up and asked 1) where the tech was and 2) if the modem was in the walled garden. It took her 10 minutes to confirm the walled garden. In other words, Comcast gave me a modem that their own service didn't recognize. Back from listening to Comcast's once-jazzy but now-disturbing hold music yet again, I heard her say "Let me put you on hold again while I fix it." After 20 minutes, I gave up waiting and hung up.

Tuesday 5:00pm - The modem still wasn't working. The technician still hadn't shown. Three hours had passed since the time slot ended. Using the number given to me by the previous rep, I called her back. Got her voice mail.

At this point, I called the regular local support line and spoke to yet another rep. He assured me he'd look into the problem and call me back. While we were speaking I suddenly saw connectivity. I must have been out of my mind at this point because I suggested canceling the appointment for the tech. I should have realized there was still a problem but I suppose I was thinking out loud why I should continue waiting for a tech who would never show. The rep cancelled the appointment.

Tuesday 6:43pm - The modem went offline. So I called Comcast again. While on the phone, the technician arrived. I told him I was amazed he showed up given that the appointment was cancelled. He said no one told him it was cancelled. (There's clearly a serious communication problem between techs in the field and their dispatcher.)

Turns out that he was a contractor so it was critically important that he not be told. According to him, he wouldn't get paid if he was informed the appointment was cancelled.

I asked him why he was so late - almost 5 hours past the window! He said that Comcast overschedules him - all the time. I could see why. He spent about an hour checking the connections and signal levels inside and outside the house. Finally, he narrowed it down to an outside problem. Someone had added a splitter 5' up the pole. Not only was that the problem but it was amateurishly done. He said he'd phone it in and someone would come out within 24 hours and give me a direct connection. He put on new connectors and, using electrical tape, rewrapped the splitter little better than the way he found it and left.



It's now been three weeks since my 6-day outage and the splitter is still hanging on the pole just the way he left it. I figure it won't be long before my connection goes out again. But if it does, I guess I can go watch movies for free at the Comcast Film Fest.