As we all know, COMCAST’s abysmal customer service has been their trademark for as far back as we can remember.  Because of their virtual monopoly in most markets, they have arrogantly thumbed their nose at their customers with a tacit dare to try and ween themselves off of the ‘Cable Crack’ they deal out.  But as with all things, change has forced Comcast to change.  Change in the economy, change in the competition, and change in technology are just a few of the factors that are causing Comcast to change…THEIR TACTICS.

Here is the new Comcast Customer Guarantee which on the surface makes it look like they are going to actually improve their customer service, but before we get ahead of ourselves let’s take a look at what is really going on.

MEDIA BLITZ

The current ad campaign by Comcast promoting their so-called Customer Guarantee is the first time that Comcast has acknowledged to their customers and prospects that they have a problem with customer service and that they intend to address it.  But with the untold millions of dollars being pumped into these ads, is the focus really on customer service or merely an attitude within Comcast management which says ‘there are no problems, just opportunities’?  If their history is any indication of what to expect, then you will see 10% of their improvement budget going into actual improvements, and the other 90% going into marketing the so-called improvements.  So where is the beef?

What is a Guarantee?

Here is a quick list of attributes of a guarantee from the good folks at DifferenceBetween.com :

The following was found at  Click2Houston.com

Click here to see the video

Feb 14, 2011 – HOUSTON — A Comcast worker has been accused of raping a 14-year-old girl.  Jose Torres was charged with aggravated assault of a child.  Investigators said Torres visited the family’s home last summer to try to sell them cable service. The victim told police that two nights later, Torres came back, broke into her family’s trailer and put a knife to her throat while she was sleeping.  The girl’s mother asked her ‘Why didn’t you call out?’”   She said her daughter replied, “because he said he would kill everyone and me.”

Jose Torres -Accused Comcast Rapist

Torres left a business card with the family last summer.  The girl later identified Torres from a photo spread.  A KPRC reporter called the number on the card Monday afternoon and was able to speak to Torres.  He told the reporter that he has been cooperating with police and suggested the charge is a case of mistaken identity.

A spokesman for Comcast said Torres worked for one of the company’s contractors.  They said he passed a criminal background check before he was hired. He was fired shortly after police opened an investigation.

Comcast issued the following statement: “We are horrified by these very serious allegations and have been cooperating with the authorities since their investigation began. Upon hearing of this incident, we immediately removed Mr. Torres from working on our behalf.”

OK folks, so here’s the deal.  We’ve seen a number of other Comcast manufactured criminal that have been well documented on this site.  If we use the same set of standards that Comcast uses to hire employees and/or contractors, then we would have to say “Sorry Comcast, but you do not pass MY background check”  YOU ARE FIRED!  Where there is smoke there is fire as they say.

I firmly believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and this is not an indictment of Mr. Torres.  This is purely an indictment of Comcast via clear evidence that they have no regard for their customers or the community at large. If Comcast is using contractors to send individuals to your home, then do they really know who these people are?  DO THEY EVEN CARE?  Obviously NOT.

Here is some information about Comcast from the Columbia Journalism Review that I thought you might find interesting.  Each of these entities that most people probably think stand on their own are actually OWNED by Comcast.  The list shown here is current as of 12/24/10 per CJR (which does not include the imminent NBC Universal addition)

• Cable
  Comcast Sports Group
  CSS
  The Comcast Network
  Comcast SportsNet Bay Area
  Comcast SportsNet California
  Comcast SportsNet Chicago
  Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic
  Comcast SportsNet New England
  Comcast SportsNet Northwest
  Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia
  Comcast Sports Southwest
  Mountain Sports Network
  New England Cable News
  SNY
  E! Entertainment Television
  Exercise TV
  G4
  Golf Channel
  PBS KIDS Sprout
  The Style Network
  TV One
  Versus
• Online Properties and Interactive Media
  Comcast.net
  DailyCandy
  Fandango
  the Platform
  Plaxo
• Communications
  Comcast Digital Cable
  Comcast XFINITY TV
  Comcast High-Speed Internet
  Comcast Digital Voice
  Comcast Internet 2go
  Comcast Business Class
• Sports Management
  Comcast-Spectator
  Philadelphia 76ers
  Philadelphia Flyers
  Flyers Skate Zone
  Front Row Marketing Services
  Global Spectrum (Public Assembly Management)
  New Era Tickets (comcastTix)
  Ovations Food Services
  Wells Fargo Center
• Other
  Comcast Spotlight

So remember the next time you are paying your Comcast bill that it goes to support the underprivilaged families of Philidelphia 76ers Basketball players as well as a host of other poor families who can tell you first hand that a 7-figure paycheck doesn’t go as far as it used to.

If you have been watching any television at all for the last few weeks, you have most likely been inundated by the media blitz spawned by the FOX NETWORKS GROUP.  They are raising awareness within the viewing public that DISH NETWORK has discontinued carrying some of their stations as of Oct 1, 2010 and will most likely drop the balance of the stations on Nov 1, 2010.  FOX has created a web site called GETWHATIPAIDFOR.COM in order to provide the public with details from their perspective regarding what the problems are and how the public can get involved.

This is not the first time this type of thing has happened nor will it be the last.  It is not a problem with FOX or DISH.  It is a problem with the Cable Television Business Model and it affects all of the cable services providers, the stations that are carried by those providers, but ultimately it is the consumer that pays the price in higher fees and programming disruptions.

It happened back in March ’09 when Comcast held Portland Basketball Fans hostage by raising the rates of games being broadcast to all carriers, and just days later when Comcast pulled MSNBC from the Portland lineup.  These are just a few examples, but as you can see it is nothing new and the occurrences are getting more frequent and having a larger impact on the general public.

The Federal Communications Commission is the regulating body for the television, telephone, radio, and other related industries.  They make and enforce the rules and are supposed to look after the public’s best interests.  If you have any problems with your cable or satellite company and can’t get any satisfaction, then these are the guys you need to go to.

Just a little over a year ago, we proposed our vision of how the cable TV industry SHOULD operate if the best interest of the public were of primary concern.  Let me reiterate the key points so that everyone {including our friends at the FCC} can comment:

1. Cable/Satellite TV companies SHOULD NOT be providing content, or getting into the telephone business, or Internet business, or any other business.  If they do they are creating a conflict of interest and detracting resources from their primary product.  If they want to get into other things, than spin off a new company rather than have CATV subscribers finance your ventures and receive sub-standard services while doing so.
2. If their mission can be narrowed down to nothing more than transporting 3rd party stations to households, then they can be treated the same as a public utility companies and regulated by those governing bodies.  Put metered usage in place and mandate an ‘a la carte’ option for customers.  This will stop the speculation regarding what a channels worth is in terms of viewership.
3. Most importantly, CHANGE THE REVENUE STREAM.  The current business model has the consumer paying the cable company and the cable company paying the content providers and the advertisers paying the content providers.  This is insanity!  It is the reason for cable companies dropping channels that demand price increases, and the reason that there are so many GARBAGE CHANNELS in a typical lineup that never get watched.  Here are some simple changes that are in the best interest of the public:

• Content providers should be paying the cable companies to carry them based upon bandwidth consumption…not the other way around.  Bandwidth is a commodity and rates should be on a flat schedule based on usage regardless of the perceived value of the content;
• Commercial channels (ones that have revenue generating advertisements) should be provided free of charge to cable customer;
• Premium channels (no advertisements) should be made available to cable customers on an ‘a la carte’ basis so that the market can determine what the true value is of any channel.

I can go on & on (and I will, I promise), but I think you get my drift.  In the mean time, let’s get back to the matter at hand.  I have extracted the Q&A section from the GETWHATIPAIDFOR.COM site so I can give you my standard ‘smart-ass’ diatribe.

[Supposed] FACTS ABOUT FOX’S NEGOTIATIONS WITH DISH

Myth: Fox is seeking a 50 percent increase in programming fees for FX, National Geographic Channel, and our 19 regional sports networks. [Keep in mind as you read on that these are all CABLE STATIONS mentioned here, not their broadcast channels that are available over the air.  FOX will be arguing the point for BROADCAST STATIONS later in an attempt to confuse the issues]

Fact: We are not seeking a 50 percent increase [great, so why not tell us what the actual increase is that you are seeking?  49.99% ???] for FX, National Geographic Channel, and our 19 regional sports networks. And we are not asking you for any more money. [Of course you're not...BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PUBLIC!!!  You must think we are all stupid if you are going to put a statement like that in there and think you wont get called out on it] We are simply asking DISH to compensate us fairly out of their massive profits for Fox’s entertainment and sports programming services they sell to their subscribers. [...and FOX will define what is 'fair', right?] We have made what we believe are fair and reasonable proposals to DISH – ones that are consistent with our agreements with the hundreds of other cable and satellite companies with whom DISH competes for your business. To date, DISH has not responded with a proposal that is reasonable by comparison to the hundreds of other deals we have in place for these same channels.  [And the bottom line is that the public ends up suffering]

Myth: If programmers did not ask for fair compensation for their television networks, consumers’ rates for cable and satellite services would be lower.

Fact: TV Providers have been raising rates on consumers for years and consumers have been paying for broadcast programming that is available free over the air. [That was when everything was analog and cable/satellite reception was better than over-the-air, but now that everything is DIGITAL more and more people have discovered that they get BETTER quality from FREE OVER-THE-AIR TV and have CUT-THE-CABLE] In good economic times, rates have gone up. In the recent recession, rates have still gone up. Even if Fox does not receive fair compensation for its content, it is entirely likely that your bill will still go up.  [But basically what you call a Myth is really TRUE because if cable companies didn't have to pay for programming, then there's no way that they could justify charging more than 20% of their current rates]

Myth: If TV Providers like DISH Network pay fair value for the programming provided by broadcasters and other content providers, it will “force” them to raise fees for consumers.

Fact: DISH Network is a successful, profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge subscribers for free, over-the-air broadcast programming). It can surely afford to fairly compensate broadcasters for that content without raising rates. Just how profitable is DISH Network?  [Once again the so-called Myth is a FACT because if ANY cost increases are not passed on to the consumers, then it necessarily has to come out of their profit margin.  The corporate executives responsible for that decision would have to answer to angry stockholders.  The only way around this BUSINESS FACT is Regulation]

DISH Network may advertise itself as a low price provider, but that still hasn’t stopped them from posting exceedingly high profits. As of August 2010, DISH Network is on pace to profit nearly $2 billion for the year or more than 40 percent more than they did in 2009. From January-June 2010, DISH Network generated more than $6 billion in revenue from subscribers and is on track to significantly improve on the $11.5 billion it earned from subscribers in 2009. In the second quarter of 2010, DISH Network received nearly 50 percent more in revenue from each subscriber than each such subscriber actually costs the operator. Overall in the most recent quarter, DISH Network posted a very healthy 25 percent profit margin.  [Unfortunately, FOX does not publish these same numbers for themselves to show us what 'reasonable' numbers look like in comparison.  If you think these DISH number look high, then have a look at these COMCAST Revenue and Profit figures!!!]

Myth: The compensation programmers like FOX are seeking is “exorbitant” and “unreasonable.” [ABSOLUTELY!  Why is FOX any different than ABC, NBC, and CBS who can transmit their programming to the public over the air.  You get advertising dollars too, don't you?]

Fact: The compensation FOX is seeking for the FOX stations is entirely reasonable. Based on the comparable cost of programming, the Fox stations could charge $4-5 per subscriber per month [Hold the phone!  Did I just read that correctly?  FOX thinks that the average household is willing to pay $4 to $5 per month for their programming?  Once again, what makes them think they are so much better than ABC, CBS, and NBC that I would be willing to pay $50 to $60 per year for their programs?  YOU GUYS ARE SMOKING CRACK!], but we are asking for just a fraction of that. ESPN receives $4-5 per subscriber [that's to F$%^&ing HIGH!] and TNT gets $1 per subscriber [and if you don't have a DVR to filter through all of their advertising then you are missing 1/2 of your life], but spends about 80% less on programming than FOX [Whos fault is it that you are spending that much on programming?]. And if one looks at the ratings [otherwise known as BOGUS JACKED UP NUMBERS] FOX and its stations get relative to cable networks, the value would actually be closer to $10 per subscriber. [Dude!  You have to back off of the CRACK...PRONTO!] Moreover, FOX attracts more viewers than the five most expensive cable networks combined (ESPN, TNT, USA, ESPN2 and NFL Net). The bottom line is that the Fox stations feature some of the nation’s most-watched programming with shows such as American Idol, House, Glee, and The Simpsons, as well as the most compelling sports on television with the National Football League, Major League Baseball, and NASCAR. The price FOX is asking for as compensation for all this value is extremely reasonable.[...NOT, and BTW neither are the others you are using for comparison.  Wait, just one question...if you get the increases you are asking for does that mean that you can afford to pay PAULA ABDUL to come back on American Idol?]

Myth: Broadcasters like FOX are already receiving fair compensation for their programming. [Wrong again CRACK-HEAD.  And if you think it is a myth then charge more for advertising instead of trying to charge cable/satellite companies (which you know full well will be passed on to the consumer if it happens).  You and all of the other stations that get money from the carriers have done nothing more than INFLATE THE MARKETPLACE]

Fact: The broadcast television business is suffering because broadcast networks are competing on an uneven playing field with cable networks. Cable networks have two streams of revenue: advertising and fees paid by distributors. Broadcasters like FOX have the single stream of advertising, and TV providers have been charging subscribers for free, over-the-air broadcast programming. [and only regulation will put an end to that, or customers getting wise to the fact that DIGITAL Over-The-Air TV is better than cable or satellite] This has allowed cable networks like ESPN to get a leg up to purchase the rights to content like Monday Night Football and The BCS Championship Series – which means that tens of millions of Americans who can’t afford or choose not to subscribe to cable or satellite miss this event programming. [But if regulations were put in place to prevent premium channels from taking advertising revenue, then the playing field would be even again] The future of free, over-the-air broadcast programming requires broadcasters to compete on a level playing field – which means getting fair compensation from companies like DISH Network. [If customers want your broadcast channels they will hook up an antenna to their TV.  Now LAY OFF THE CRACK, and get on board with our proposed changes that would level the playing field for all networks (broadcast & cable) AND substantially reduce prices for the consumers at the same time]

Check out the entire report at Wiki Invest where they take stockholder reports and create a very effective execute summary.  I’ve included a few key statements from the report here since the link supplied above will most likely update the content with new information as it comes out.

< Business Overview >

NBC Universal Deal

“…Comcast will benefit from the deal by further vertically integrating backward into the production side of media as well as adding large and profitable cable franchises to its national cable business.  However, the deal has raised some questions about net neutrality and antitrust issues, requiring the deal to undergo lengthy regulation reviews before it is passed, to ensure that Comcast does not obtain too much power in the media world.”  [...not to mention that it will drastically increase Comcast's lobbying expenses to buy off all of the politicians and regulators.]

BreakDown of 2009 Revenues ($35.8 BILLION)

• Video (54.2%): “…This revenue increase was due mostly to rate adjustments [otherwise known as PRICE INCREASES] as well as customers upgrading to Comcast’s more expensive digital video services. This increase in revenue is significant because Comcast lost approximately 623,000 customers between 2008 and 2009 due to increased competition.“  [This statement comes directly from their 2009 10-K report.  You and I know exactly why Comcast lost all of those customers and you might say that this is a gross MISREPRESENTATION to their stockholders, but I'm sure that a good lawyer could argue in court that "competition" could be construed as  FREE OVER-THE-AIR TV or even competition with the consumer himself for the few dollars left in his pocket.]
• Internet (21.7%)
• Phone (9.1%) “Comcast earned $3.3 billion in revenue from its phone services, a substantial increase from its 2008 revenues of $2.6 billion”
• Advertising (4%) “Comcast’s advertising segment earns revenue through programming license agreements with programming networks.” [OK, so check this out...Comcast has to throw price increases at consumers because of rising programming costs, yet they freely admit that they DRIVE UP THE COST THEMSELVES with "you scratch may back and I'll scratch yours" advertising deals with the programmers.  Comcast uses the higher programming costs to justify higher rates, AND they get $1.4 Billion in advertising revenue as PURE GRAVY...WHAT A SCAM!!!]
• Other (3%) “Comcast earns revenue through its regional sports networks, digital media center, on-screen guide advertising, and fees from various other services. In 2009, Comcast earned $1.1 billion in revenue in its other segment.^” [This one cracks me up!  If they can be so blatant about their EXTORTION in the defined segments, can you imagine what they might be hiding in the "OTHER" category?  I see more advertising here too.  Why isn't that in the 'advertising' category?]
• Franchise Fees (2.7%)
• Programming (4.2%) “…mainly through advertising sales and from subscriber license fees for its networks, which include E!, Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4, and Style.”  [Looky here, more advertising.  If you add up all of the real advertising revenue we're talking about 11.2% which would probably raise the eyebrows of regulators and auditors...or at least line their pockets a little more.  The real issue is how do we get Comcast OUT OF THE PROGRAMMING BUSINESS?  Forget that.  They are getting deeper into it.]

< Trends and Forces >

NBC Deal Subject to Regulatory Approval [Yeah, we know all about this but the deal will go through and the politicians will get their COMCAST BONUS BUCKS for making it happen]

The Cable TV market is shifting to a new digital system, which is upsetting some customers

“In areas all over the United States, cable providers are requiring their subscribers to shift to a new digital system… The benefits for Comcast are obvious: they can offer a lot more channels compared to analog offerings. However, many customers are upset that there is no option to maintain the old analog option for a lower price, which is driving down the collective satisfaction of Comcast’s consumers.”  [Here's another case of 'smoke & mirrors'.  Comcast could easily provide a digital package to their customers that is priced the same or lower than the 'old analog option', but they simply refuse to do so.]

Net Neutrality

“Congress is considering legislation that would allow broadband Internet providers–like Comcast–to charge for preferred delivery of digital content. “Net neutrality” advocates are lobbying Congress to treat all web content the same, as is the current standard. Comcast and other Internet providers claim they should be able to sell premium service to larger users of their networks, since they are investing heavily to build and maintain such networks. If legislation is passed to prevent Comcast from charging premium prices for differentiated delivery, it would limit Comcast’s future revenue growth.”  [This is the scariest thing going on.  As stated here, Comcast's business plan moving forward relies upon the demise of Net Neutrality.  This means that we may have to pay for things on the Internet that we take for granted as Free to the Public today.]

The Department of Justice is examining how the proposed $13.75 BILLION deal of Comcast acquiring NBC Universal from General Electric might adversely affect the blossoming Internet video market.  There are fears that the new Comcast could potentially stunt the Internet video industry’s growth.  The agency’s antitrust division is looking into whether or not Comcast could potentially control distribution rights to significant amounts of television programming on the Internet, which would effectively block potential competition.

Companies like Netflix and others are providing access to television programming and movies over the Internet which is encroaching on the traditional market of cable and satellite companies, which in turn are trying to fend off the competition by creating Internet-based distribution methods of their own.  Current regulations require cable companies that own content (like Comcast) to make that programming available on reasonable terms to rivals.

DISH and DirecTV have added their 2-cents into the discussion by requesting that those regulations be extended to any Comcast/NBCU content that’s delivered over the Net.  [Hmmm, do you think they fear that Comcast will be looking to make some content EXCLUSIVE to Internet distribution to bypass existing regulations?]

They are also looking closely at Comcast’s efforts to give its cable customers online access to some TV content that isn’t widely available online now, and how that might affect access to those programs by other Internet providers. That might result in fewer competitors over time so that consumers would end up paying more for video in general.  [LOL,,,if WALMART can do it and get away with it, why not COMCAST?]

“The success of the online-video-business model depends critically on access to online content, and strict conditions on the transaction would be necessary to thwart” any attempts by Comcast-NBCU to block access, Dish wrote in a complaint to the FCC detailing its support for broadening the existing regulations.

Comcast’s response to the complaint: “Online video is not a substitute” for multichannel video programming.  “In addition, several impediments – technological, pricing related, and rights related – make it highly unlikely that online video will become a substitute” for such service “in the foreseeable future.” [...so let us just SQUASH it before it does and we'll be doing you a favor too]

Although the transaction is expected to be approved late this year or early in 2011, the government does have some leverage and it could impose conditions particularly because of the FCCs involvement which has broader authority to act to stop anything that it deems to be against the public interest.Regardless of the outcome of this deal, the DOJ & FCC will most likely continue to investigate whether cable operators are acting to thwart emerging competition from the Web. If so, they could file a suit under the Sherman Antitrust Act for anti-competitive behavior.  [...in which case they will pay what seem to be a hefty fine but will only amount to a drop in the bucket compared to the stolen revenues and lost opportunity cost for Internet Video companies that could have been great if only they had a fighting chance]

Blockbuster Logo

Blockbuster has jumped in bed with Comcast and should they produce any offspring you can be sure that the combined DNA of these two companies will spell nothing but trouble with a capital “T” for consumers.

A talking head for Comcast describes the deal as a marketing agreement where Comcast will be able to offer discounts on Blockbuster’s DVD-By-Mail service to certain Comcast customers. As part of the agreement, Comcast will not take a cut of any related revenue, but will provide deeper discounting for customers who decide to take advantage of the Blockbuster DVD-By-Mail service. It wasn’t immediately clear how much the deal might be worth to Blockbuster.

“It’s not about a financial benefit, but about targeting (our) the products to Blockbuster customers,” the Comcast talking head said.

As part of the model, Blockbuster stores have been promoting Comcast’s triple-play (otherwise known as the “3-Card Monte”) services.

Here’s the real scoop folks…Blockbuster is in big financial trouble and is grasping at straws.  Comcast sees an opportunity to get some cheap advertising through Blockbuster, but mostly they want their customer list.   When Blockbuster goes bankrupt about 18-months from now, Comcast will swoop down on all of the former Blockbuster customers with a “teaser” deal that they can’t refuse.

It is no different than a street corner crack dealer handing out free samples to the neighborhood kids to get them hooked so they can score the BIG BUCKS on the back end.

COMCAST…DEALING YOUR FAVORITE DRUG SINCE 1963

Frank Eliason (Mr. ComcastCares)

I can’t say that it comes as unexpected, but at the same time…WOW! Frank Eliason, better known as “Mr. ComcastCares”, has resigned his post as Director of Digital Care in Comcast’s Customer Service organization. Frank was responsible for leveraging social media, primarily Twitter, in attempting to improve Comcast’s abysmal reputation in the area of customer service. Frank built an extensive machinery of tracking and analysis using tools like WebTrends and Radian6 in order to evaluate things like how many people are talking about you online vs. a competitor and the relative “influence” of those people.  The success of Franks efforts have been highlighted in BusinessWeek and countless blogs.

The timing of the announcement coincidentally corresponds with a response to a comment that Frank submitted on the ‘Worst Company in America’ post.  I’m not going to be so bold as to say that I am responsible for Franks decision, but if CTC had any influence at all, then I’m glad to know I was able to help in whatever little way.  You can follow Frank on his personal blog at http://www.frankeliason.com.

Customer Service & Corporate America

Unfortunately, Comcast is not the only company that has customer service issues.  There are a dwindling few companies left out there that have real customer service anymore.  Most times you’ll pick up the phone to call customer service for any company and the first thing you get is ‘press 1 for English’  followed by a half hour worth of questions before you actually speak to a live human who barely speaks English and then asks you all of the same questions that you just spent a half hour answering to the computer.  One hour later when you actually get to voice your concern, you get transferred into thin air and have to start over.

Why is this?  Do companies really hate their customers that much?  No, the real reason is that there is a disconnect between the company’s cost of providing quality customer service and the customers expectation that it should be provided for free.  So then just add the cost of customer service to the product, right?  No, because the consumer will select like products by price and customer service quality is not considered a ‘value’ at the time of purchase.  So how do we get past this disconnect?  That my friends is the million dollar question that has plagued all of these companies for at least a decade.  They tried outsourcing to India and the consumers complained even harder.  Social media is the new frontier and it is too early in the game to call in the jury for their verdict, but there are some positive signs.

Message to Frank

Despite the public and private back-and-forth we’ve had over the past year, it is my opinion that you have pioneered some important work in the customer service arena.  Frank has demonstrated to me and to many other Twitter denizens that Frank Eliason personally cares.  Now whether or not ComcastCares is a different question of which we all know the answer.  Frank being the consummate professional is not going to leave with any negative comments toward his lame-duck employer (especially if he is being paid off to sign a non-compete for an extended period).  Yet as we all know, actions speak louder than words and by Frank leaving Comcast we know two things: 1) Comcast was not willing to compensate Frank according to his market value (which is less than his accrued value within Comcast), and 2) Comcast doesn’t care about providing real customer service…just the illusion thereof.  We hope that your new employer actually does care about improving the customer experience although I’m not holding my breath.  Only time will tell if they back your efforts with policy changes because that is the only way real change occurs.

Best of Luck!

Reprinted from The Hill:

Senator Al Franken

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) blasted the prospective Comcast-NBC Universal merger and pressed Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan for her views on net neutrality during her confirmation hearing this week.

Kagan declined to weigh in on the pending merger, but said that First Amendment rights should not be used as a kind of free pass when companies are charged with anti-competitive conduct.

“The First Amendment does not provide a general defense to the anti-trust laws,” she told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “In general, the anti-trust laws are the anti-trust laws and they apply to all companies.”

When Franken asked more explicitly about how net neutrality might be legally defended, Kagan declined to take a stance on what she characterized as a policy issue. But she generally supported Franken’s description that free-speech rights promote media diversity.

“One of the purposes of the First Amendment is to ensure a public sphere in which all kinds of thoughts and views can be expressed and we can learn from all of them,” she said.

Franken reinforced the strong stance he took earlier this year in opposition to the merger.

“Comcast is already extremely powerful,” he said. “It’s the nation’s largest cable operator and also the largest home Internet service provider. If it owned both the pipes and the programming it would have the ultimate ability to keep others from publishing.”

He warned that other major Internet service providers may decide to follow the Comcast into the content arena.

“I worry that if Comcast and NBC merge, AT&T and Verizon are going to decide that they have to buy ABC or CBS and that will mean there will be less independent programming, fewer voices, and a smaller marketplace of ideas,” he said.

Franken broached net neutrality during Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings last year as well.

A Saturday Night Live Comedian gets it.  What can be so hard? Speaking of SNL, can you imagine what it would end up being if Comcast gets their hands on it?

That’s right folks, you heard it here first.  This is a Cut-The-Cable (CTC) EXCLUSIVE!

On July 1, 2010 Comcast will be raising the rate that it costs you to pay them through Western Union Convenience Pay at your local supermarkets in cash from $1.00 to $1.50.  See it for yourself.

Comcast 7/1/10 Rate Increase

Here’s the story that goes along with this gem.  On Sunday 6/27/10 my wife and I are out grocery shopping.  The grocery store was completely out of one of the sale items that we were looking to pick up, so after checking out we headed over to the courtesy booth to get a ‘rain check’ for the sale item.  That’s when I spied this little item that was prominently laminated and taped to the from of the counter.  It reads “ATTENTION (grocery store name obfuscated so that the store manager doesn’t get fired) CUSTOMERS.  EFFECTIVE July 1, 2010.  The Service Fee for Comcast wil increase from $1.00 to $1.50.  This is a Western Union Convenience Pay ® service fee payable in cash only.  THANK YOU for your business!”

Well, of course I had to get all of the details on this from the grocery store manager (GSM) so here is what he told me.

CTC: Hi, I’m doing an article for the Internet regarding Comcast and I was wondering if I could take a few pictures of your Courtesy Booth area.

GSM: I’m sorry but picture taking within the store is not allowed unless your get permission from our corporate headquarters.

CTC: Ok, then would it be possible to get a copy of the rate increase notice that is posted?

GSM: Sure, I can help you with that.  [GSM struggles to remove tape from the front of the posted notice.]  I’ll tell you what, you just need a picture of this notice right?  I’ll let you take that if you PROMISE to cross out the store name at the top.

CTC: I promise. [*CLICK*]  Do you mind if I ask you a few questions regarding Comcast?

GSM: I’ll try to answer what I can.

CTC: Do you know if this rate increase is being driven by Comcast or Western Union?  Who receives the fee?

GSM:  We receive a very small portion for doing our part.  Western Union Convenience Pay is the service used by most of the companies that we collect for and the rates are not going up for those other companies, so I am 99% sure that the rate increase is all going to Comcast.

CTC: Why would someone pay you a service fee to take their money?  Wouldn’t it be cheaper to pay their bill using a 1st class stamp?

GSM: …or even the Internet.  I wold say that most of the people that pay their bills in cash at our service booth are the ones that do not have a checking account and either do not have Internet service or are not very computer savvy.  They are probably from a different socio-economic situation than you and I.

CTC: One last question, About how many Comcast transactions do you handle n a month, and what is the average amount of each transaction?

GSM: Oh, it’s very small, maybe 1% of our business and the size of the bill is for whatever is typical for just basic cable TV, what is that, about $50 a month, and then you tack on all of those taxes and other charges.

CTC:  Thank you very much for your time

GSM: No problem.  Just remember to take the store name off of that picture or I’m hunting you down!

Now I look over to my wife and I’m all proud that I was able to nail this story, and she’s looking down at the frozen items that are beginning to melt and giving me the STINK EYE!  I wonder if Matt Drudge has those issues?

I contacted Western Union and they assured me that the rate increase was not coming from their end, so at this point it is all being chalked up to more Comcast greed.  It is obvious to me that the people that are paying their Comcast bills at the grocery store are the ones that can least afford it, and by increasing the fee that they charge for processing a cash payment Comcast is rubbing salt into the wound.

My opinion is that by allowing alternate means of paying for their services by cash though local grocery stores and other outlets, Comcast has grouped itself with the likes of electric companies, telephone companies, and other services that are all regulated in some form or another by Public Utility Commissions.  If Comcast wants to act like a utility, I say that they should be treated like one too and have the local and state regulatory bodies enact some PRICE CONTROL on them.