Warning: Their are some explicit things mention and uncensored
NFL Network
On November 10, 2006 Comcast announced it would add NFL Network on digital tiers in time for the eight-game Thursday- and Saturday-night package. On August 6, 2007 Comcast moved NFL Network from the digital tiers to the Sports Entertainment Package. This led to a court battle between NFL Network and Comcast, with the ruling in favor of Comcast but the NFL Network plans to appeal the ruling. Comcast has sent NFL Network a cease-and-desist letter to stop encouraging subscribers to leave Comcast. Comcast's agreement with the NFL Network ends in mid-2009. In February 26, 2008 an appellate court in New York has reversed field on a judgment made in May 2007 that allowed Comcast to move the network from its second most distributed tier to the company's sports tier. At the time a court date has not been set. Four judges at New York’s Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, ruled the language "concerning additional programming package was ambiguous and that neither party has established that its interpretation of the relevant contracts is a matter of law."
NFL Network later filed a discrimination case against Comcast with the FCC, claiming that since Comcast doesn't charge extra for its owned and operated sports channels Versus and The Golf Channel, it's unfair to charge extra for NFL Network. On October 10, 2008, the FCC ruled as follows:
"In the Second Report and Order, the Commission emphasized that the statute “does not explicitly prohibit multichannel distributors from acquiring a financial interest or exclusive rights that are otherwise permissible,” and thus, that “multichannel distributors [may] negotiate for, but not insist upon such benefits in exchange for carriage on their systems.” The Commission stated, however, that “ultimatums, intimidation, conduct that amounts to exertion of pressure beyond good faith negotiations, or behavior that is tantamount to an unreasonable refusal to deal with a vendor who refuses to grant financial interests or exclusivity rights for carriage, should be considered examples of behavior that violates the prohibitions set forth in Section 616.”We find that the NFL has presented sufficient evidence to make a prima facie showing that Comcast indirectly and improperly demanded a financial interest in the NFL’s programming in exchange for carriage. We further find that the pleadings and documentation present several factual disputes as to whether Comcast’s retiring of the NFL Network is the result of Comcast’s failure to obtain a financial interest in the NFL’s programming. Accordingly, we direct an Administrative Law Judge to hold a hearing, issue a recommended decision on the facts underlying the financial interest claim and a recommended remedy, if necessary, and then return the matter to the Commission within 60 days."
FCC Program Access Complaint
Comcast's trial about the NFL Network's Program Access Complaint with the FCC, filed in May 2008, before an administrative law judge began on April 14, 2009. At issue is whether Comcast's placement of the NFL Network on a digital sports tier ("Sports Entertainment Package") represents discrimination prevented by the 1992 Cable Act.
On April 17, 2009, Comcast chairman and CEO Brian Roberts testified that Comcast is willing to move the channel from the Sports Entertainment Package to a lower priced base package if the subscriber fee was reduced to 25 cents per month. NFL Network currently charges a 75 cents per month fee. He claimed that overall, Comcast saves $50 million a year in license fees by leaving the channel on its Sports Package, which in turn leads to savings for its customers. On May 19, 2009 it was announced that a deal had been reached to move the channel to its "Digital Classic" tier.
Reputation for poor customer satisfaction
There have been many reported incidents with individual customers describing less than satisfying interactions with Comcast's customer services. These include situations with a technician falling asleep on the job, customers having to spend hours on the phone to fix simple problems, and sending a bill addressed to " Dog" to a customer who had recently complained about her service. On October 15, 2007, a 75-year old Comcast customer named Mona Shaw entered her local Comcast offices with a hammer and destroyed some office equipment before being arrested and fined for damages. Mrs. Shaw was angry and frustrated due to a previous encounter with Comcast customer service in which she and her husband wanted to speak with the manager and were forced to wait outside the offices for two hours before being informed that the manager had already gone home. Comcast's customer service quality has prompted several individuals to create blogs and websites dedicated to informing the public of Comcast's service, including one run by media columnist Bob Garfield.
In 2004 and 2007, the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey found that Comcast had the worst customer satisfaction rating of any company or government agency in the country, including the Internal Revenue Service. However, the ACSI indicates that almost half of all cable customers (regardless of company) have registered complaints, and that cable is the only industry to score below 60 in the ACSI. Comcast's Customer Service Rating by the ACSI surveys indicate that the company's customer service has not improved since the surveys began in 2001. Analysis of the surveys states that "Comcast is one of the lowest scoring companies in ACSI. As its customer satisfaction eroded by 7% over the past year, revenue increased by 12%." The ACSI analysis also addresses this contradiction, stating that "Such pricing power usually comes with some level of monopoly protection and most cable companies have little competition at the local level. This also means that a cable company can do well financially even though its customers are not particularly satisfied." In 2009 Comcast rebounded on its ACSI rating for television and Internet services, moving ahead of Charter Communications and into a tie with Time Warner Cable.
Within the Cable Television needs assessment report for the city of Fort Collins, CO February 10, 2004, which was required for Comcast's franchise renewal the city's independent consultant found: "Approximately 62% of the respondents, though, were very dissatisfied (along with another 25% who were dissatisfied) with the cost of cable television service." "A majority of the respondents were satisfied with the friendliness and courtesy of customer service personnel. Overall, approximately 43% of the respondents rated the cable company's performance as fair, 30% regarded it as poor and another 30% rated the cable company's performance as good."
While Comcast does operate some of its own Customer Service Call centers it also outsources Customer Service and some technical support to Convergys Inc a third party call center company.
On October 1, 2008, J.D. Power and Associates published its annual customer satisfaction survey for the nation's top 10 largest cable and satellite television providers. Comcast scored in the bottom 5 for each region of the United States, including 10th in the East Region.
Customer service after Hurricane Ike
Shortly after Hurricane Ike hit the Houston, Texas area customers received bills and later collection notices for unreturned equipment that was destroyed during the storm. One customer reported a $931 bill which included a $66 credit for interrupted phone service, but also included $1000 charge for not returning her rented DVR, Cable Modem, and other equipment. Comcast responses differed after the storm, some Customer Care agents told customers to file with their insurance, some agents told them to return their equipment even if it is ruined or moldy.
Network neutrality
As early as late 2006, Comcast has implemented measures using Sandvine hardware which sends forged TCP RST (reset) packets, disrupting multiple protocols used by peer-to-peer file sharing networks. This has prevented most Comcast users from uploading files.
On August 17, 2007, TorrentFreak reported that Comcast has been preventing BitTorrent users from seeding files. In October 2007, the Associated Press confirmed the story that indicates that Comcast "actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally." In November 2007, Comcast's severe limiting of torrent applications was again confirmed by a study conducted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in which public domain literature is distributed over peer-to-peer networks. Analysis of the EFF study finds "strong evidence that Comcast is using packet-forging to disrupt peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing on their network". The studies show that Comcast effectively prevents distribution of files over peer-to-peer networks by sending a RST packet under the guise of the end user, and denying the connection, which effectively blocks the user from seeding over BitTorrent. Legal controversy arises because instead of simple filtering, Comcast is sending RST packets to Comcast customers, pretending to be the host user at the other end of the BitTorrent connection. Comcast's BitTorrent throttling was revealed to be through a partnership with Sandvine, although Comcast's internal memos instruct employees to respond to the contrary.
There is also evidence of Comcast using RST packets on groupware applications that have nothing to do with file sharing. Kevin Kanarski, who works as a Lotus Notes messaging engineer, noticed some strange behavior with Lotus Notes dropping emails when hooked up to a Comcast connection and has managed to verify that Comcast's reset packets are the culprit. A lawsuit, Hart v. Comcast, has been filed accusing Comcast of false advertising and other unfair trade practices for allegedly advertising unlimited high-speed Internet access while in reality working to restrict their customers' usage of the Internet.
In 2007, Comcast customers reported a sporadic inability to use Google, because forged RST packets are interfering with HTTP access to google.com, which has further angered users.
In January 2008, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin stated that the FCC is going to investigate complaints that Comcast "actively interferes with Internet traffic as its subscribers try to share files online". During a February 2008 FCC hearing in Boston, Comcast admitted they paid people to hold seats. The company claimed it was so staffers could attend later, but opponents claimed it was to keep Comcast opponents from attending. The FCC has stated it expects to rule on the issue by June 30, 2008.
Comcast and BitTorrent Inc. agreed in late March 2008 to work together in a collaborative effort that will leave the network provider to reconfigure its network to manage traffic in a more protocol-agnostic way. Implementation was projected for late 2008.
Prior to implementation of Comcast's apparent agreements with BitTorrent, Inc., Comcast is reported to be continuing to limit bandwidth available to peer to peer applications. In April 2008, Comcast proposed a "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" to address potential copyright infringement by users of peer to peer applications, but some scholars argue that this is a veiled attempt by Comcast to strengthen its traffic management capability rather than fight copyright infringement.
On August 21, 2008 the FCC issued an order which stated that Comcast's network management was unreasonable and that Comcast must terminate the use of its discriminatory network management by the end of the year. (File no: EB-08-IH-1518). On January 18, 2009, after reconfiguring their traffic management regime, Comcast was asked by the FCC to address their alleged throttling of VoIP customers.
Lobbying efforts
Analysis indicates that Comcast spends millions of dollars annually on government relationships. Regularly Comcast employs the spouses, sons and daughters of influential mayors, councilmen, commissioners, and other officials to assure its continued preferred market allocations.
Comcast occasionally lobbies against "à la carte" bills that would give consumers the option to purchase individual channels rather than a broad tier of programming. Although they claim the reason for this is to keep customer costs lower, these issues continue to garner attention from state governments, the United States Congress and former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin.
HDTV claim and quality
Comcast has started transmitting three HD channels per Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) carrier, rather than two per QAM like some other video service providers. Though more cost effective and many consumers have not reported a difference, this additional compression has been noticed and measured by savvy customers as a reduction in the quality of broadcasts.Comcast claims to have more HD choices than DirecTV by including Comcast's on-demand and pay-per-view assets. Each HD on-demand program is counted as an HD "choice" by Comcast.
Versus / DirecTV carriage dispute
On August 18, 2009, satellite TV provider DirecTV informed its customers that it may drop Versus after August 31 if a new carriage agreement isn't made with Comcast. Robert Mercer, director of public relations for DirecTV, said: "Versus' overall ratings are poor and have not increased nearly enough to justify what we're paying them, let alone the significant increase they're asking for. He added "It is a significant rate hike and the deal is discriminatory because Versus is not offering the same package options as other distributors." Versus responded in a statement released August 20 that said it has added "many marquee properties" and has become "the fastest-growing sports cable network in the country." The price cable systems pay is reportedly 18 cents per subscriber.The rate Versus is asking of DirecTV is unknown. DirecTV dropped the channel at midnight on September 1, replacing it with the message "Versus is no longer available on this channel. Comcast, which owns Versus, has forced us to take down the channel because we will not submit to their unfair and outrageous demands. For more information go to www.directv.com/versus." DirecTV said it already pays Versus more than any other independent distributor and that the 20% hike it is seeking "for what is basically a paid programming and infomercial channel with occasional sporting events of interest is simply piggish. Comcast has set a market with arms length negotiations with these other distributors and DirecTV expects equal treatment. But we want them to understand that we must hold the line on programming costs and protect them from unwarranted price increases, especially in this challenging economy."
Versus responded by saying: "On behalf of millions of passionate sports fans, we are disappointed that DirecTV has chosen to remove Versus from its service and deny their subscribers access to our all-encompassing coverage of the sports they love. Since our last deal with DirecTV, Versus has added many marquee properties and has become one of the fastest-growing sports cable networks in the country. Versus offered DirecTV a fair and reasonable offer to carry the network at the market price. We hope DirecTV will make the right decision for their customers and put Versus back on the air." The next day they said the dispute is about placement, not prices. DirecTV wanted to take Versus away from 6 million subscribers who were receiving it for no additional cost. That was simply not acceptable for us. We hope to resolve things amicably, but that's a non-starter." Those increases aren't true," said Davis. "We're simply asking them to pay what the other providers are paying." He added "If the quote-unquote 'leader in sports' considers the Stanley Cup playoffs and Lance Armstrong's comeback as paid programming and infomercials, then I think the average fan knows they're not the real 'leader in sports.' That's an insult to all the fans of those sports." Versus reportedly charges 27 to 29 cents per subscriber.
Versus launched a national newspaper ad on September 4 saying "Worthless: That's what DirecTV thinks of the sports you love". It then urges DirecTV customers to switch providers.
Signal intrusion & accidental transmission of ography
On May 1, 2007, during a broadcast of the preschool progam Handy Manny, Comcast had briefly replaced the program on Disney Channel's cable channel assignment with hard-core ography for subscribers in Lincroft, New Jersey. Comcast's response to the complaints that ensued from the incident claimed that "We are continuing to investigate the root cause of the incident." A spokesperson for Disney Channel said in a statement "We value the trust that parents have in Disney Channel and our programming," said Disney in a statement, "and certainly take [Tuesday's] regrettable programming disruption in New Jersey extremely seriously.
On February 7, 2008, Comcast subcribers in Nashville, Tennessee also saw ography via the cable provider on Cartoon Network. The incident which happened in the early morning hours, and was broadcast for at least an hour. Vice president of Nashville's Comcast provider, John Gauder apologized and stated "We apologize for any inconvenience some of our Comcast cable TV customers in Middle Tennessee experienced Thursday as a result of some highly unusual issues... It appears that a subscription movie channel was inadvertently shown on other channels which normally carry news, sports, children's and other entertainment programming… We are taking the appropriate steps to ensure that this highly unusual incident does not happen again." Comcast said that engineers thought they had fixed the glitch which occurred on multiple cable channels at midnight earlier that night, but the error reappeared at around 4 a.m., when the cable company decided to remove the channels from the lineup.
On February 1, 2009 during Super Bowl XLIII, Comcast's transmission of NBC affiliate KVOA (channel 4) in Tucson, Arizona was interrupted for approximately 20 seconds replacing the telecast of the game via NBC with soft-core from the adult pay-per-view channel Shorteez, in which a man and woman were shown on a sofa, and subsequently the man unzipped his pants, revealing his genitalia. This accidental display affected Comcast's analog cable subscribers in parts of the Tucson area. The substitution appears to have been made at Comcast, not at KVOA, leaving KVOA's over-the-air, satellite and other cable providers viewers unaffected. Also, Comcast's high-definition transmission of KVOA was not affected.Comcast launched an investigation on the incident with the FBI stating that it was an "isolated, malicious act".Comcast also offered to give a $10 credit to any customers who say they viewed the approximately 30-second clip.
