Montgomery County cable modem regs praised as Comcast objects

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Jul 13, 2004 by Sofia Kosmetatos

Montgomery County Council members seeking to regulate customer service standards for cable modems yesterday urged rejection of amendments they said would weaken the proposed legislation.

Democrats Marilyn J. Praisner, whose district includes Silver Spring, and Phil Andrews, whose district includes Rockville, said the amendments sought by Comcast Cable Communications Inc. and fellow council members would undermine consumer protections intended by the legislation.

The legislation would establish standards similar to those for cable television service in the county, including requiring repairs and maintenance to be completed within 36 hours of the time the subscriber reports the problem.

Other standards include correcting service interruptions within 24 hours or else rebating the customer 10 percent of their monthly bill for each additional day service is not restored.

With more than 300 complaints, cable modem service was the second- leading source of consumer complaints to the county last year, Andrews said.

Since August 2000, more than 1,000 consumers have filed cable modem service complaints, including Rockville resident and full-time telecommuter Jaime Todaro. She said she started having trouble with her Comcast cable modem service in January 2002, after the company transitioned its cable modem service in house.

Despite being a customer for years, Todaro said her service went down for days while her modem was being registered. Then her service started going down for hours every morning, she added.

Todaro said she spent months trying to figure out the problem with Comcast and its technicians to no avail. She got so fed up that she finally switched to a T-1 line. The high-speed phone connection popular with businesses was her only option, since Digital Subscriber Line service was not available in her area and dial-up was too slow for work.

Todaro's company, Fairfax-based ICF Consulting, is footing most of the bill for the T-1 line, which costs 10 times as much as her $45- per-month cable modem. But not all telecommuters are as lucky, she said.

Another cable provider, Starpower, has failed to provide much competition to Comcast, Todaro and others said. Without adequate competition, she added, the regulation is a way to ensure that the phones will be answered, repairs would be completed and refunds will be issued for services not rendered.

Comcast and Starpower are the two providers in the county, but Comcast provides the majority of service, according to county officials. Although Praisner is not certain exactly how many cable modem service customers there are countywide, more and more residents and businesses are relying on it, she said.

The legislation, which will be among the first of its kind in the nation, is necessary to protect our constituents so that they receive what they pay for, Andrews said.

Comcast did not return calls and Starpower declined to comment. But in a Sept. 30, 2003, letter to the county, Comcast said it would be put in a competitive disadvantage by these regulations because they would increase the costs for cable companies alone to provide Internet services and impact our ability to compete with other Internet service providers in our franchise area.

The company also objected to providing the county with data regarding compliance because the data is not required of its competitors and it would not want this information made public in a competitive market.